Elections in London: Invalid Ballot Papers

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many spoilt ballot papers, expressed as a percentage of total votes cast, there were in the recent elections in London for the Mayor, the London Assembly and for the European Parliament respectively; and what assessment they have made of this.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in the London mayoral elections, 2.96 per cent of the mayoral election ballots did not contain a valid first preference vote. For the second choice vote this figure was 17.14 per cent. In the London Assembly elections, 6.17 per cent of the constituency member votes and 2.53 per cent of the London-wide member votes were not exercised validly by voters. In the European elections the figure was 0.94 per cent. The Greater London Returning Officer will be carrying out a review of the London elections.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that those of us who were knocking on doors in the run-up to polling day and on polling day had to spend more of our time explaining the voting system to voters than trying to persuade them to vote for the party of our choice, and that there is something not quite right with having three different voting systems on one election day? Can the Government consider this matter and see whether there is a way of making life easier next time?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for his Question. Canvassing for my noble friend in the past, I never found it difficult to persuade people to vote for him. However, that is not the issue before us today. As I explained to your Lordships' House a couple of days ago, there will be a review and analysis of the elections and the process. The Greater London Returning Officer is undertaking a quick review and evaluation of the 2004 elections. It is likely that the London Assembly will conduct a similar scrutiny of the conduct of the elections.
	As I said to your Lordships' House the other day, the number of spoilt or incomplete Greater London Authority ballot papers fell by over 10 per cent compared to the 2000 elections, while turnout rose by 2.5 per cent. So clearly the information blitz in the run-up to the elections had a fair measure of success and we should celebrate that fact. It was a complex election and, by and large, people managed to understand the different ballot papers with which they had to deal and to cast their votes accurately.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, how many votes were spoilt in the London mayoral election as a result of voters who had been instructed that they had to vote twice but did not want to vote for a second person voting for the same person in both column 1 and 2 of the ballot paper?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am unable to help the noble Lord with that question. If he will bear with me I shall carefully go through the figures. London voters had, effectively, five votes that they could use in the election. So in essence there were some 9.6 million possible votes; 1.92 million voters each having five possible votes. More than 570,000 were not validly used. Of that figure—this is an important statistic—329,000 were rejected second preference votes where the voter had chosen not to mark a second choice candidate. So, those who did not choose to use their second vote have been entered into the category of voter who did not chose to use their vote validly, which slightly distorts the figure. That is perhaps difficult for the noble Lord to follow, but it does make sense.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister referred to a blitz of information, which included the booklets sent out by the Greater London Returning Officer in the form of freepost leaflets. There was no other freepost for the mayoral candidates. Do the Government accept that there was a problem with timing? Many postal ballot papers were issued in London, even though it was not an all-postal ballot. Many voters received ballot papers before they received the freepost leaflet. Will the Government raise with the Electoral Commission the timing of nominations and the sending out of such information so that voters may be informed before they receive their ballot papers?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a helpful and useful point. We will do all we can to ensure that the elections run as smoothly as possible. However, the picture I am trying to paint is that although there was much concern in the run-up to these elections, voters did extremely well in dealing with what I think would be commonly accepted as a complex set of elections. Yes, we should do more. The Greater London Returning Officer will conduct his own review and no doubt the noble Baroness, using her position on the Greater London Authority, will ensure that it carries out a thorough scrutiny exercise. There has been a lot of myth, but the reality is that turnout increased. By and large voters managed to opt for their choice and seemed clearly to understand the electoral system.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that if the returning officer carries out a full and proper review, this difficulty will not arise in future?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should like to think that when the Greater London Returning Officer conducts his review, and does it properly, the electoral system will be plainer and simpler for people to understand. That should be everybody's shared objective.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification. I am sure that I misheard what he said. Was it that some 300,000 voters in the mayoral election cast only one vote; in other words, they did not have a second preference? I understood from what the Minister said that those 300,000 or so votes would be null and void. Is that right?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is not the case. The fact that 329,000 people chose not to exercise their second preference votes did not nullify their first preference votes. What I explained to your Lordships' House was that that category of non-voter was counted in the 590,000 that I referred to as being rejected votes.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister take the opportunity to correct a statement made by his noble friend Lord Filkin yesterday in answer to my noble friend Lord Greaves? He said that the Asian lady who was being discussed,
	"had to get her cross on her ballot witnessed, most probably by a member of her family".—[Official Report, 30/6/04; col. 263.]
	It is not true that the cross had to be witnessed, merely the identification of the person. It would be helpful if the Government would correct that statement.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I was not present during that discussion but I think that I probably agree that the noble Lord is right on that point.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, does this Question not illustrate that these elections were far too complicated? Do the Government not agree that it would be unwise to run so many elections together under so many systems? Perhaps they would like to consider going back to the well tried and tested method of first-past-the-post elections, which everyone understands, however many elections there are?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. As I said, one accepts that there was a degree of complexity and we have to give the electorate credit for dealing with that. Electors understand exactly how to use the ballot box and where to put their cross, and if it is carefully explained to them, that is made much easier.

Homelessness: Rural Areas

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of the report on homeless households in remote rural areas, State of the Countryside, how such households not housed in temporary accommodation are provided for.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, government figures show that last year, households accepted as homeless in rural areas were more likely to be offered settled housing than households in urban districts. In 2003–04 around 17 per cent were found a settled home in rural areas compared to 12 per cent in urban areas. Of the remainder, 37 per cent of households were placed in temporary accommodation; 39 per cent remained in their existing accommodation awaiting a suitable settled home; and 7 per cent found their own solution.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Does he accept that there is a great crisis in rural housing, whereby rural homeless figures have risen from 14,950 to 20,850—a rise of 30 per cent over the past five years? How will the Government resolve this crisis that continues to afflict people living in rural areas?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that this is a crisis. I certainly agree that there is a problem and a difficulty. The Government are very committed to tackling and preventing homelessness. We have significantly increased resources and introduced legislation to strengthen the help for homeless people and have successfully tackled the worst manifestations of homelessness.
	We have increased investment in affordable housing and we are improving prevention and increasing the supply of affordable housing; £5 billion will be invested in affordable housing over the next three years—double the 1997 levels.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, under the Sustainable Communities Plan, how much housing is likely to be provided in rural areas, particularly in the north and north-west and north-east, rather than in the south and south-east where we know there will be concrete and well over half a million houses? What are the proposals for the northern part of the country?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have precise details and figures for the northern areas which the noble Baroness has not exactly defined. I can say that on rural housing the Housing Corporation has already exceeded its target for 2002–03 by providing 1,579 homes in small rural settlements, and it has provided nearly 5,000 homes in larger rural areas and at least 3,500 affordable homes in settlements of fewer than 3,000 that have been approved for the next two years—that is, 2004–05 to 2005–06.
	We are making progress. We should congratulate the Housing Corporation on its important work and the partnerships that are being forged with local government in tackling these problems.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister mentioned smaller rural settlements. At the current rate of provision, which I believe was some 1,800 units last year, it will take dozens of years for many smaller rural settlements to even get one unit of social housing to replace those that have been lost to the system. How many years does he estimate it will take to fulfil even current estimated housing needs?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is hard to give that kind of provision in data. I think that it is worth reminding your Lordships' House that we are beginning to see targets being exceeded. I agree with the noble Baroness that difficulties have been caused in the past, which is why this Government have taken action—which I am sure the noble Baroness supports—to tackle some of the worst disadvantageous effects of "right to buy" in rural areas. We have allocated more resources to ensure that vulnerable people, and particularly those in rural communities, can stay in their homes.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the annual January count of gypsies and travellers by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister shows that the number of homeless Gypsies and Travellers has shot up between 2003 and 2004? What progress has been made on the Government's plans to mainstream the needs of Gypsies and Travellers in housing needs assessments?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I know the noble Lord is very concerned about the needs of travellers and gypsies. We are making some progress. The noble Lord has made important contributions to debates on that subject in your Lordships' House. I cannot provide the noble Lord with detailed data today, but I am happy to write to him on progress in tackling those problems.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. Is the Minister aware that in the north-west of England the Forestry Commission is undertaking a feasibility study to see whether there is any redundant forestry land in areas of the most shortage of affordable houses? If that feasibility study proves positive, we will look at the possibility of providing affordable houses in parts of the north-west.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of the important work the Forestry Commission is carrying out. It could well make a very valuable contribution to ensuring that there are affordable houses in rural areas. I congratulate my noble friend on the important work he has undertaken in that regard. I think that it will greatly strengthen those communities and ensure that in the future those on lower incomes have access to affordable social housing.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that since the demise of the council housing sector, the number of affordable houses he mentioned, which was 1,500, is a drop in the ocean in terms of need? Could he address the problems facing young people in remote rural areas who are unable to live in their own area and who cannot compete against second home owners? They are swelling the numbers of homeless in the urban areas. This is an urgent problem that needs to be resolved.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I certainly agree that it is an urgent problem. It is for that reason that the Government have taken action to deal with the problems that associate themselves with rural homelessness and pressure on the housing market in some rural areas. Restrictions may well be imposed on resale of "right to buy" properties in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and so on. We are working in partnership through the Countryside Agency and the Housing Corporation and funding jointly with local partners the rural housing and neighbours programme, so that rural communities, housing associations, local authorities and landowners can help to increase the supply of affordable housing in those rural settlements.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, in congratulating the Forestry Commission on its work in this direction, perhaps the Minister's department could contact the water authorities to ask whether they would carry out a similar exercise with their surplus land throughout the country.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on making that point. I am sure that other public sector providers should conduct themselves in the same way.

Iraq: NATO Deployment

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans there are for a NATO force to be deployed to Iraq to support the new government after the handover of power on 30 June.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are no plans to deploy NATO troops as part of, or in place of, the multinational force in Iraq. However, in a letter of 2 June, Prime Minister Allawi specifically asked for NATO help in training Iraqi security forces. It was agreed at the NATO summit in Istanbul that NATO would respond positively to this request.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Clearly security is the highest priority in Iraq. In the light of that will Her Majesty's Government use their influence with other NATO members to ensure as many as possible contribute to the training and equipping of the Iraqi armed forces? Unfortunately, Afghanistan is not a good test case for that happening.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course security is a very important priority. The noble Lord said it is the highest priority; it is certainly a foundation stone on which other priorities have to be built. Sixteen NATO members are already putting troops towards the multinational force. The statement issued by the heads of government at the end of the NATO summit made it clear that further work would need to be done, both on the issue of training and on other requests from Prime Minister Allawi over equipment and other matters. The North Atlantic Council has been asked to consider those matters. I do not take quite such a gloomy view over the position of Afghanistan.

Lord Richard: My Lords, can my noble friend give us some idea of the scale and scope of this training? How many people is it hoped will be trained? In which country will they be trained? How much of the training is to take place inside Iraq and how much outside?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in answering the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, I make it clear that further work is being undertaken on this issue and that the North Atlantic Council has been tasked on that by the heads of government. There are questions about where this training should take place; whether it should be in Iraq or outside Iraq. Indeed, such training as is currently under way, certainly as regards police training, takes place both within the country and elsewhere. There may have to be a mix.
	There are currently 200,000 Iraqi nationals involved in security operations. Some have already received training, others still need to be trained, but this is obviously a formidable task and work is being undertaken not only by the NAC, but in conjunction with the Iraqi Government over the best way of tackling this issue.

Lord Garden: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the call made by the NATO Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, at the Royal United Services Institute on 26 June for nations to consider common funding for such operations? We cannot expect volunteers if they also have to pay the costs disproportionately. Should we not be pushing that agenda forward now?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the NATO Secretary-General made a fair point. Clearly, the costs of what has happened in Iraq have fallen disproportionately on the shoulders of the willing so far. Therein we have the dilemma: this has been a coalition of the willing and, in undertaking that work, the coalition has also undertaken the cost. But that does not mean to say that in the new era that has begun, with an Iraqi Government now in charge of their own country, a sovereign country, other nations may not now want to consider whether they would like to help to shoulder some of that burden.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, for the wider world, what is important in all that is undertaken in Iraq is that it is being undertaken under the authority of the United Nations? Therefore, although we welcome the contribution to be made by NATO, with its special capabilities, does she not agree that it is tremendously important to make it manifestly clear that anything that NATO does is ultimately politically accountable to the United Nations?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I associate the United Kingdom Government with the desire of the wider world, as my noble friend puts it, to acknowledge that what is now happening in Iraq is happening under the authority of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. So I hope that in making that point my noble friend is not excluding Her Majesty's Government. The important point for us to concentrate on is that the training and discussions around it, has been triggered not by NATO, but by a specific request from Dr Allawi. Dr Allawi's letter of 20 June is clear on that point; it is clearly a letter to the NATO Secretary-General; it has been responded to in the positive manner that I have already described to your Lordships.
	I do not think that we can say that NATO has direct responsibility to the United Nations on the matter, but we can say that the multinational force operates under the auspices of the United Nations and we hope that that will all be done with the maximum of international co-operation.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, yesterday, the new Iraqi Deputy Minister of Health told me that 2,000 children a day are still dying in Iraq because lack of security is impeding the building of hospitals and the distribution of drugs? Is it not very sad that NATO is being impeded from providing the bigger role that Mr Allawi and others want and that has been requested of the Secretary-General by the apparent decision of the French that they do not want NATO to become further involved? Can she explain why France, which is not even a full and proper member of the integrated command structure of NATO, is being allowed to obstruct measures that would clearly help Iraq to recover, and would save children's lives?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was not aware of that particular part of the conversation that the noble Lord had with the new Iraqi Deputy Minister of Health, but the noble Lord was kind enough to tell me privately that he had had such a conversation. I certainly know that the health of very young children, and perinatal mortality for women, in Iraq are extremely difficult issues.
	The noble Lord said that it is the French who are impeding a wider security role. I am bound to say to him that it has recently become a bit of a media sport to cite points allegedly made by leaders or Ministers of different countries to suggest that they mean different things from each other or are impeding a wider position. The point on which to concentrate is that President Chirac, President Bush, and every other leader of a NATO country has agreed that training is necessary. Not only that, they have agreed to task the North Atlantic Council,
	"as a matter of urgency and on the basis of a report by the Secretary General",
	to consider,
	"further proposals to support the nascent Iraqi security institutions in response to the request of the Iraqi Interim Government".
	So further work on that point is being done at the behest of all the NATO leaders.

Pensions: Taxation Measures

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they propose to reverse any of the taxation measures which they have taken in relation to pensions.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government propose, from 6 April 2006, radically to simplify the current taxation rules for pensions. The new rules, set out in the Finance Bill currently before Parliament, will make it easier for individuals to plan with confidence for a comfortable retirement by creating a simpler and more flexible environment for pension saving.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I mean no offence to the noble Lord when I say that I had rather expected my Question to be answered by someone a little more familiar with the subtleties of the Treasury then he perhaps is. There is nothing offensive in that remark.
	I shall ask him a simple question. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer changed the rules for advance corporation tax, did he or did he not anticipate the dire consequences that that would have for pension funds? If he did, should he not now offer some explanation to pensioners? If he did not, if it was just an accident, perhaps the time has come to repair the damage.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, my Lords, I do not have to be too familiar with the intricacies of the Treasury to recognise that that question is a little old hat. The changes were made in 1997 and I bring to the noble Lord's attention the fact that they were part of a wider range of measures to benefit long-term investment in our economy. I think that he would recognise that, subsequent to that, we have had a structure of increasing confidence in investment in the economy and that it is the security of the economy that brings return to investment funds, not the marginal issues of taxation.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, on the subject of old hats, perhaps the Minister could tell us how much smaller are the pension funds of our country as a result of the changes that the Chancellor made to taxation. If he does not know the answer to that question, my noble friend may have illustrated how irresponsible that change of policy has been for the nation's pensioners.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question, but I can tell the noble Lord that the overall position of the economy and the indices of shares are much more significant to pension funds than taxation. Of course I recognise that taxation has its part to play, but we all recognise that the strength of the resources available to pension funds depends on the strength of the economy. The noble Lord will recognise that in isolating the issue of the 1997 changes, he is altogether ignoring the reduction in corporation tax and the other measures that the Chancellor took to ensure that investment in our economy would increase.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by the Minister, because all pension funds exist to invest their money in industry and commerce. I always have a go at a Latin phrase, never having learnt the language, but ispo facto, if you remove £5 billion sterling per annum from pension funds, you reduce investment that would otherwise go into industry and commerce.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I emphasise the point that I made a moment ago. Of course the noble Lord is right that that impacted on pension funds; no one would deny that. I seek to emphasise that the Chancellor brought forward a package of measures at that time to improve investment in our economy. The results of that package of measures are bearing fruit as we move on. The Opposition seek constantly to refer to only one element of the 1997 Budget, when it is clear that the Budget as a whole acted very differently in relation to the overall increase in investment and the position of pension funds.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Labour Benches.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that, when the Chancellor decided to introduce taxation on pension fund surpluses, the stock market was such that those pension funds could meet them? Things have changed since then. Catastrophically, as a result of a change in stock market circumstances, plus the £5 billion a year that has been taken out, employers have moved away from occupational pension schemes to the detriment of pensioners. Is it not now time to rethink the position in view of those circumstances?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is right to say that the Government need to rethink the position. That is exactly what the provisions in the existing Finance Acts do. They simplify pensions legislation thereby creating circumstances in which individuals can judge the advisability of any scheme that they might enter. Employers and contributors have lower administration costs, and we provide a climate in which the development of pensions takes account of what I recognise have been a difficult past few years.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will have noticed that we have had an accident with the clock. I propose that we take questions from both the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. I ask that both questions be very brief and that my noble friend be brief in his answers.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I am quite happy to have an answer from the Minister, because my question is very simple. Do the Government realise that the state pension system is now so mean and so means-tested that most people will face a marginal top tax rate of 40 per cent on their pension savings when they retire? When will the Government understand that the only way to cut through that disincentive and to start people saving again is to give everyone a decent citizens' pension as of right, not on the basis of means-testing?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point about the state pension. He will recognise that we are producing reforms in the Finance Bill and the Pensions Bill before the House, which will clarify the position and lower administration costs. He will also recognise that the Government are concerned to tackle poverty wherever they find it. He will pay tribute to our record of taking significant numbers of children out of poverty since 1997. He is right to draw attention to our need to address the problems of the elderly.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, my noble friend's Question should be put in the context of the appalling figures reported today. The Office for National Statistics estimates that the amount in funded pension schemes, having already been reduced from £81 billion to £53 billion, has now been reduced to £41 billion. It is half what it estimated two years ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, pointed out, a significant reason for that reduction is the change in advance corporation tax. It affects not only private schemes but local authorities, which will have to increase council tax as a result.

Lord Davies of Oldham: But, my Lords, that is not entirely so. The noble Lord has identified figures for the reduction of the value of the funds. He will know that taxation change is a marginal aspect of that; it is not a substantial element in that computation. We all recognise that there have been significant dips on the Stock Exchange and problems over the past three years or so. However, the noble Lord will recognise that the Government's proposals in the Finance Bill and the Pensions Bill create the basis on which we can improve pensions in this country, particularly by simplifying the situation so that all involved with pensions can understand the costs and benefits of such investment. That is bound to improve the situation.

Higher Education Bill

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
	Moved, that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF ANOTHER LORDS AMENDMENT DISAGREED TO, AND COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 56 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
	2 Clause 23, page 9, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) to ensure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged to any eligible student for any academic year beyond the first three years of a first degree course."
	2A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because any special assistance for students on longer courses is better targeted through grants, loans and bursaries.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.
	Noble Lords will remember that the Bill left this House exempting students in England from fees beyond the third year of a course but making no such provision in Wales. As I said at Third Reading, we estimate that the cost of the amendment to universities would be on the order of between £130 million and £180 million annually, because it would take away from universities all fee income, not just that which would be additional to the basic fee.
	I recognise the genuine concerns of noble Lords who supported that amendment, but I fear that it will be counterproductive. By taking away that fee income from universities, we would introduce a real disincentive for them to provide longer courses, including medicine, engineering and architecture. The amendment would also have an impact on sandwich courses that include a year in industry, and on applications to veterinary science or modern language courses. We should not jeopardise the supply of qualified professionals in this way.
	We already have the right approach—a flexible system that allows us to target support at those subject areas and students who most need it. For example, medical and dentistry students already have their fees paid by the NHS for the fifth and, where there is one, sixth year of their courses. In addition, in years 5 and 6 they may also receive a means-tested NHS bursary of up to £2,703 in London. They also remain eligible for a student loan for living costs under the student support regulations.
	The evidence is that this approach works. Students are not deterred from taking longer courses because the support is there to enable them to complete the course. The increasing number of applications to medical courses since 1998 underlines that. We already monitor demand for courses and provide incentives where needed to ensure that recruitment in key areas remains at the right level. We shall continue to operate in that way under a variable fees system. For the reasons that I have put forward, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as the Minister said, on Report noble Lords agreed to an amendment to restrict top-up fees to the first three years of a university course. It was intended to cover students studying to become medics in the widest sense, vets and architects and others with longer than normal courses to become fully fledged professionals—or so we thought. In condemning the amendment in another place, the Minister—like the Minister today—pointed out that the amendment went far wider and included students on some sandwich courses and also the basic tuition fees that students pay at the moment.
	That was clearly unintentional, and Mr Johnson was right to point it out. However, had he been prepared to accept our central premise that these students should be treated fairly with their cohort doing other shorter courses, he could have proposed an amendment in lieu and this debate would have been very different, as this House, I am sure, would have accepted the olive branch.
	However, when my honourable friend Mr Boswell asked Mr Johnson directly whether he would open negotiations with my noble friend Lord Forsyth on this basis, he replied with a blunt "No". What did he recommend the other place to do instead? He proposed stamping on our amendment with a very heavy foot, carrying the day in favour of his position by 291 votes to 193. The amendment now comes back to us with a surprising reason for rejecting it:
	"Because any special assistance for students on longer courses is better targeted through grants, loans and bursaries".
	Increasing loans, and therefore postgraduate debt, is what the Higher Education Bill is all about, and that will apply to all students. What will not apply to all students are grants and bursaries; some will get them while others will not, for exactly the same courses. In a debate in another place, much was made of the position of less well-off working class students, which is not the phraseology that I would have used. It totally ignores the position of students who get no financial help, whether from parents or through bursaries.
	When I first saw this reason, unfair as it clearly is, I was tempted to propose to your Lordships an amendment in lieu, and press it to a vote. Clearly, I have resisted that temptation, for two reasons. First, the Government would have turned it down flat. I could live with that, but in the end it would have meant keeping students' hopes up unnecessarily. After all, they should be given the longest possible time to prepare for the future. Secondly, as we all know, there will be a general election within the next two years. It is inevitable that one of the things that will influence many voters, student voters in particular, is the unfairness of this Bill. They cannot fail to realise that. Medical students will continue to be subsidised by the state for their fifth and sixth years; the public sector looks after its own. Vets, architects and the like in the private sector will not be subsidised.
	A mischievous thought then came to me. Will the Labour Party manifesto contain a commitment to a pre-university Civil Service exam, with successful students then being subsidised through university? Perhaps there would even be special universities such as the écoles d'administration in France. Irrespective of that, the right thing for your Lordships to do now is to let the Government have their way, and let the electorate decide.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches, we supported this amendment when it was tabled in this House. We are sad that the other place has seen fit not to support the amendment. Much has been made in our debates of the position of those studying medicine and architecture. I was always more concerned about the normal run of students, particularly those studying engineering and languages, which entail a four-year course, and who are hit disproportionately by having to pay fees for that extra year. Over the course of time, the law of unintended consequences may well play its part. We shall see many students opting not to take these courses because they are longer-term courses, and instead opting for the shorter courses because they are shorter and fees must be paid only for a shorter time.
	However, that is as may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said. This goes forward now as part of the Bill, and it will be for the electorate to make up their minds at the next general election. In the elections last month, it was noticeable that in university towns where students were voting there was a considerable vote against the Government.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I will make a couple of points, which I hope will be of some reassurance. First, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will agree that I have been open in the opportunities for debate. I appreciate that that is not quite the same as the Minister of State for Higher Education; I hope that none the less that has been some comfort to him.
	Secondly, it is important to realise that we will consider and ensure that government departments monitor demand and take-up of places to address the concerns of noble Lords that we do not see fewer applications. The Langlands review is an important part of that, and the House recognises that Sir Alan Langlands will do a great job on that. I hope that on that basis noble Lords will see that we are continuing to monitor the situation, and they will not press the amendment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	3 Page 9, line 18, at end insert—
	"( ) A condition under this section must require the governing body of the relevant institution to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, the qualifying fees charged to a person do not exceed the basic amount if that person—
	(a) had on or before 1st August 2005 received an offer of a place on a designated course or on a similar course which is no longer offered, in either case the first year of which begins before 1st September 2007, and whether conditional on obtaining specified qualifications or not; or
	(b) had received an offer of a place on a designated course the first year of which begins before 1st September 2006, and—
	(i) he was not able to take up the offer because a specified qualification or grade was not awarded to him,
	(ii) he appealed against the decision not to award the qualification or grade to him,
	(iii) the appeal was allowed after the last date when he could have taken up the offer, and
	(iv) as a result he was offered a place on the course for a year which begins on or after 1st September 2006 and before 1st September 2007.
	( ) For the purposes of this section, a course is similar to a designated course, whether or not it is at the same institution, if—
	(a) it leads to a degree or other qualification which is the same as the degree or other qualification which the designated course leads to, and
	(b) the governing body of the institution at which the designated course would be studied is satisfied that the subject matter of the designated course is for the most part the same as the subject matter of the other course."
	The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu—
	3A Page 10, line 21, at end insert "and section (Transitional cases in which condition must not allow fees to exceed basic amount)"
	3B Page 10, line 41, at end insert the following new Clause—
	"Transitional cases in which condition must not allow fees to exceed basic amount
	(1) Section 23(1)(b) has effect in relation to the qualifying fees payable by a qualifying person in connection with his undertaking a qualifying course ("the relevant course") in a case where subsection (2) or (3) applies, even if those fees are payable in respect of an academic year which begins at a time when an English approved plan is in force in relation to the institution.
	(2) This subsection applies where—
	(a) the qualifying person had on or before 1st August 2005 received an offer, whether conditional on obtaining specified qualifications or not, of a place on the relevant course or a similar course, and
	(b) the first academic year of the relevant course begins before 1st September 2007.
	(3) This subsection applies where—
	(a) the qualifying person had received an offer of a place on a qualifying course (whether or not at the same institution as the relevant course) the first academic year of which begins before 1st September 2006,
	(b) he was unable to take up the offer because a specified qualification or grade was not awarded to him,
	(c) he appealed against the decision not to award him the qualification or grade,
	(d) the appeal was allowed after the last date on which he could have taken up the offer,
	(e) as a result he was offered a place on the relevant course, and
	(f) the first academic year of the relevant course begins after 31st August 2006 but before 1st September 2007.
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a) a course ("the original course") is similar to the relevant course if —
	(a) it appears to the governing body of the institution providing the relevant course that the subject-matter of the course is in whole or in part the same as the subject-matter of the original course, and
	(b) except where the original course is no longer being provided, the relevant course is provided by the institution which was to have provided the original course."

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 3A and 3B in lieu thereof.
	We recognise the genuine concern that noble Lords have expressed about the treatment of gap year students in 2006–07, and we have been swayed by the principled arguments that have been put forward. In the light of that, I am pleased to say that the Government accept the principle behind Amendment No. 3. Amendments Nos. 3A and 3B in lieu, which the Commons have voted to accept, reflect that. I assure noble Lords that they achieve the same policy intent as the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, while addressing some technical issues.
	It was argued in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the advantage to students of putting this provision in the Bill would be to give them certainty, both about the fee regime and the student support package to which they are entitled. I fully accept that this is the fairest approach. By providing the protection sought in the noble Lord's amendment, which our amendment in lieu would provide, we avoid the risk that some students might choose to forgo a gap year in 2005, thus placing extra pressure on places in the higher education system for that year.
	The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, also sought to protect that very small number of students who, because of a successful appeal against their A-level results, might miss out on a university place in 2005 and have to start instead in 2006. This is the right thing to do, and the government amendments in lieu offer this protection. Essentially, the students covered by the government amendments would be treated for student support purposes as if they began their course in 2005, and they will be liable for fees at the standard rate.
	While the amendments in lieu fully maintain the intent of the noble Lord's amendment, there are a number of ways in which they differ in drafting and structure. First, the amendment passed by this House includes a reference to "years". This is replaced by "academic year" throughout, in line with the rest of the Bill. Secondly, the Lords amendment refers to "designated courses", but the courses to which the fee controls in the Bill apply, and to which the gap year exemptions should apply, are "qualifying courses". We have changed that term. Thirdly, we have structured the government amendments to reflect the structure throughout the rest of Part 3 of the Bill, linking it into the condition of grant in Clause 23(1). Our amendments in lieu make clear that Clause 23(1)(b), which limits fees to no more than the basic amount, still applies to these students, even when the institution has an access plan in place. Fourthly, the amendment passed in this House contained no provision for sanctions, should a higher education institution seek to charge higher fees to the gap year cohort. The amendments in lieu address that.
	Finally, the amendment passed in this House is based on the first set of regulations made in 1998, rather than the regulations as they were subsequently amended. The amended regulations were slightly less restrictive in how they treated students who ended up studying a different course from the one for which they were originally accepted. I am sure that noble Lords would want us to echo this approach, and that is what the amendments in lieu do.
	We have had extremely fruitful discussion on this issue. We have listened to the arguments made in the course of debates, and we have been persuaded by the principle and spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. Our amendments in lieu reflect that, while ensuring that the protection offered to students is as watertight as possible. I hope that the House will agree with the amendments in lieu.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 3A and 3B in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for taking on board these concerns. She has been kind enough to point to the fact that the amendment was in my name, but it would be only right to point out that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, felt just as strongly about this. It has been something of a double act on our part.
	I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for doing the work of at least 200 journalists. This place and the other place seem to have lobby correspondents at every turn. I listened to the reporting of the consideration of Lords amendments by the Commons on "Yesterday in Parliament" at the time, and they managed not even to notice that the Government had made this major concession, which affects tens of thousands of families across the country. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, because it took her letter to the Times to draw the attention of the country to what was going on in this place in respect of this Bill. I do not know what all those journalists are doing. I know what they were not doing when the Commons were considering the Lords amendments, because I went to listen. Whatever they were doing, they were not in their places in the Press Gallery. However, that is a wider issue.
	I should also say to the Minister that we toasted her health at a school function that I went to last weekend. Somehow, word of the change had got out. It is important not just for students currently doing AS-levels or Highers—the cohort that is affected—who want to take a gap year but for those who want to go straight to university, because otherwise there would have been a bulge.
	In a little bit of role reversal, I am a bit worried about the technical drafting of the government amendment, and I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me on two points. In the original amendment, I included a date of August, and my first question is whether students who apply through clearing will be covered by the provision. That will affect a number of students. I suspect that the answer may be "No". The second issue that concerns me is the fact that the Government have added some sanctions, should universities decide to charge increased fees to students who take a gap year. What will the Government do to prevent universities offering fewer deferred places to that cohort of students, perhaps because of the incentive of the prospect of getting additional fees? Those are my two worries. I have no doubt that, given the spirit of what the Minister said, they can be covered in one way or another.
	The Bill has been a great deal of work. It makes it very worth while to see the Government prepared to listen—albeit under a degree of pressure from this House—and to make a change that will make a huge difference to thousands of families throughout the country. The Minister could help me by indicating how many people she thinks will benefit from the Government's concession.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I was one of three Labour Peers that voted for the amendment. I am glad that Ministers have changed their mind. I feel justified in what I did and am grateful, in particular, to the Minister for the work that she did in ensuring that the Government's position was changed.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, said, we supported the amendment throughout, and we were very pleased when it was accepted by this House. We are doubly pleased that the Government have seen fit to continue with the amendment and recognise the wisdom of what we said about the large number of students who would be affected and the uncertainty that it would cause for institutions and students, unless the matter were made clear in the Bill. We are extremely pleased to see the amendment being made.
	I was pleased to be able to clarify in the columns of the Times that it was this House that had passed the amendment. The other point that was worth making in the Times was that, in this House, it is not just when we take issues to a vote that we obtain concessions from the Government. In this case, in particular, we had a listening Minister, and there were other occasions on which she listened to us and some substantial concessions were made in this House. Some of the concessions made with regard to OFFA and the position of part-timers were significant and are worth flagging up.
	I am grateful to the Government for retaining this change. It will benefit many students. I have had two or three telephone calls from parents who were delighted that the concession had been made. I thank the Minister for arguing for it with her counterparts in the other place.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it was kind of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, to toast my health. I could not agree more with him about the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. I referred to it, but obviously not clearly enough. I also agree with him about the role of your Lordships' House. On this subject in particular, it has a substantial role to play. I am also grateful for the acknowledgement of the work that I have done, although I should say that my colleagues in another place have listened and have been extremely helpful.
	The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, asked me about a couple of specific points. The date of 1 August mirrors what was in the amendment that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness tabled, which was the same date as provided in 1998. In another place, they discussed different scenarios with regard to clearing. Rather than go through all of those, it is right, as the noble Lord indicated, that we do not plan to cover clearing students at this stage. That is mainly because it would, at best, be unusual for a student to take up an unfilled place through clearing and then seek to defer entry. That is not the purpose of clearing.
	As I said, universities still have the right to exercise discretion in such cases. We have not taken that away; indeed, it is where we began. They could offer exemption in a particular case, if they felt that that was right. However, we will carry on talking about the issue with Universities UK and with UCAS. Noble Lords will probably know that we can do something about gap years without primary legislation, because of the way in which the Bill is structured. If those deliberations and discussions lead us to a view that we should do something more, we can. For the moment, we do not plan to, and we will carry on the discussions. I am sure that we would be interested to hear anything more that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, has to say on the issue.
	I was asked about the number of gap-year students who will be directly affected. Some 19,000 18 year-olds in the UK deferred entry from 2003–04 to 2004–05. About 26,000 students of all ages deferred entry. Taking the proportion of students in England from the UK figures, we estimate that about 28,000 students might defer entry and would be covered by the noble Lord's amendment. That is a significant figure. It may sound like a joke, but actually my babysitter is covered too.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I suspect that the Minister's babysitter may have had more influence than the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and me put together. My recollection of how hard it was to get good babysitters would support that.
	People who would have been denied a place if others had not taken a gap year will also benefit. However, I should like to press the Minister—she may be just coming to this point—about the anxiety that the universities may offer fewer deferred places.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I was coming to that point. I must say to the noble Lord that the babysitter told me that only after we had made the decision. I shall point out to her the reference in Hansard; she will be very pleased.
	Given the autonomy of universities, there is nothing that the Government could or should do to make universities do it. Our relationship with the universities continues to be a strong one, and I hope that we will address such issues with them directly. I am deeply reluctant to say that the Government should interfere with the autonomy of the universities in the way in which they deal with admissions. I appreciate what the noble Lord says, but it is for universities to determine the issue. The Government will talk to the universities, support them and work with them, but it is not right that we should tell them what to do about it. I have great faith—I know that the noble Lord has too—that the universities will respond appropriately, as they have responded throughout our discussions.
	I hope that noble Lords will agree with the amendments in lieu.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	4 Clause 27, page 13, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) Student fees paid to relevant institutions pursuant to this Act shall in principle be additional to and not in replacement of state funding provided for and in respect of the teaching of undergraduate students at such institutions which funding will be at an annual real level per student not less than the average provided over the previous three years."
	4A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it involves a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.
	The amendment raises the issue of parliamentary privilege, which is why those in another place have chosen to reject it. For that reason, I hope that it will not be pressed. Nevertheless, the issues raised are important, and I am glad of the opportunity to refer to them again. We debated the issue at some length during the passage of the Bill in Committee, on Report and again at Third Reading. It was a wide-ranging debate, which reflected well on the expertise of noble Lords who spoke. In particular, there were valuable and heartfelt contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Phillips, Lord Dearing, Lord Baker and Lord Forsyth, the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady O'Neill, and my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lady Blackstone. I am grateful to them all and to all other noble Lords who made contributions to this important debate.
	The key issue, and the reason that this amendment was rejected in another place on grounds of privilege, is the fact that we believe that it would be inappropriate for legislation to tie the hands of future governments and prevent them determining their spending priorities in the light of circumstances at the time. However, I recognise the strength of feeling in your Lordships' House that this fee income should be genuinely additional. I have said quite clearly that the Government are committed to that. But primary legislation is not the right place for such commitments. Noble Lords will appreciate that that is a precedent I do not wish to set.
	While I do not believe that the amendment should be pressed, I hope that I can again go some way to assuring noble Lords that we are doing all that we can to meet their concerns. When we discussed this matter previously, I said that, following discussions with Universities UK and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, my right honourable friend the Minister responsible for higher education had written to Universities UK proposing the establishment of a working group to produce a new definition of unit cost. I am pleased to say that the first meeting of that group will be on 5 July. That definition would, of course, be published in the annual departmental report, which is laid before Parliament in the usual way.
	I can also confirm that I shall be meeting the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on Tuesday 20 July with colleagues from the Higher Education Funding Council for England to discuss how information about the levels of funding can be presented in the most helpful and transparent way for the benefit of both institutions and their students. I know that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, was seeking when she spoke at Third Reading.
	It is important that we have had a further chance to reflect on those issues. The Government have done so. So, too, have the other place. On grounds of privilege, they have decided that they cannot accept this amendment. In view of that, for the reasons that I have set out and with the reassurances that I have given, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 4A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, this amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Phillips, who is unable to be here today and asked me to speak in his place. He is sad that the Government have not seen fit to support this amendment in the Commons and that it has not been passed. The amendment reflects a very deep anxiety on his part and on the part of other noble Lords from all Benches in this House that in the Bill the Government would be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The guarantee incorporated within the amendment would have ensured that that did not happen.
	We are delighted that the Minister has continued to maintain, in what she has said today, the assurances that she has given to the House that it will not be a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The other aspect that arose during our debates—that is, a definition of what is meant by unit funding per student—is being clarified. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, is not in her place today, but her amendment carried this issue forward. We did not pass it, but nevertheless it was agreed that she would participate in discussions. I am delighted to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, will participate in discussions to identify a clear statistic that we can look at and measure.
	On these and other Benches, I am sure that we shall follow in considerable detail and keep a very eagle eye on precisely what happens to the funding for universities. It is vital that the moneys that are promised through the Bill are additional to other moneys, which was the fundamental purpose of the amendment. There should be clear additionality. I very much hope that the Government live up to those promises and that, from now onwards, we shall see universities benefiting from the extra moneys that will be flowing into their coffers.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I do not wish to be too controversial or too ungrateful at this point, given that the Minister was so helpful on gap years. I am not particularly surprised that the Government have rejected the amendment on additionality. After all, we have been here before. We did this last time around when fees were introduced. This House passed an amendment stating that funding which came from fees for universities should be additional. That was rejected in the other place on the grounds that it would be additional. Ministers gave great assurances that the funds would be provided. I shall not bore your Lordships by reiterating what happened in detail again. We know what happened; that is, that the money was taken and was not additional.
	We know that the Government's explanation is that if the Tories had won the election, their spending plans would have meant that there would be a reduction. But a Government that was elected on a platform of "Education, Education, Education", and on not introducing tuition fees, introduced tuition fees, took the £1 billion and put it in the Treasury's pockets, and it was not additional. So we have the Government's recidivism to consider against the assurances, however well intentioned, from the Minister that that will not happen.
	While being controversial, I have to say that Universities UK—which, it has recently been drawn to my attention, sent an e-mail to all its supporters or possible supporters in this House telling them that there was a plot between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to have an amendment reopening the fees debate and urging them to make sure that they went through the Lobbies to do so—has, so far as I am aware, not gone out with the same eager enthusiasm to get people to give support to this principle of additionality.
	If noble Lords believe the Government, that is up to them. Personally, I think that the same will happen again. The Treasury does not change its spots whichever administration is in power. Universities UK has been—to use the colloquial expression—sold a pup. It has gone around telling universities that this will be additional money and that this is the only way to get that additional money. Here we are, at this stage, with the Commons claiming privilege in response to our amendment, which simply seeks to put in the legislation the promises being made by the Government and being reiterated by the Minister.
	I know that there is an important principle here. I know that the Treasury hates it. But I do not, for the life of me, see why making it explicit in the Bill that the income from fees will be additional is impossible, when it is possible to do so in respect of, for example, income from congestion charging in London. The principle that the Treasury has always fought to prevent being enshrined in legislation—of pre-empting its resources—has been included on a number of occasions. Given that the sums of money involved are so important to the universities—albeit that they are inadequate—and given that the cost to the taxpayer of providing that additional income of £900 million is at least £200 million more, it is disappointing, to say the least, that the Government have not accepted the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who I now see in his place, which had support in every quarter of this House.
	So I have a prediction. If the Government win the next election and this Bill continues in force, at some stage in this House we will be contemplating the fact that the additional money that came from fees has somehow not been added to the grant; just as we did before. The universities, of course, will be in even more dire straits than they are at present for the Bill does not measure up to the scale of the problem that they face.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, I was one of the supporters of the Phillips amendment. I feel very strongly about this matter because we were concerned with increasing the resources going into universities, not with changing the basis of university funding. It is a matter of conscience for us all that this money should go towards improving education that people will get from our universities and to remedy some of the past inheritance. I cite, for example, academic salaries which have fallen very severely in real terms.
	In the other place when discussing this matter, the Minister, Alan Johnson, referred to a "very interesting debate" in which the Government had joined with Universities UK on defining units of resource. I say to the Minister that we shall take an equal interest in the outcome of that debate and in seeing that the unit of resource is maintained.
	I have perhaps more confidence than the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that the undertakings will fructify in the way we would both wish, and I trust that I, rather than he, am right on this occasion.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, is able to tell noble Lords about the spending commitments made by the party on the Opposition Bench, we shall see the commitment to the growth of our universities made by this Government. The noble Lord has spoken with great passion about his concerns, so I hope that he is successful in making sure that that passion is translated into the kind of commitments made by his colleagues in another place that keep politicians true to their word in all senses. That is important. We need to see it happen on all sides of the House.
	I am aware of the strength of feeling and the desire of noble Lords to ensure that this is pushed forward. However, I believe that the pledges I have given, in particular on the definition of unit costs, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will be kept to, thus ensuring that noble Lords will be able to see what happens. We have debated many times the history of what has developed post-1997 and I do not propose to re-enter that argument, but I can state categorically that unit funding will rise by 7 per cent between 2002–03 and 2005–06. Universities should be aware of and recognise that commitment.
	On the basis of my argument about the Commons and their privilege, and on the basis of my commitments, not least to those noble Lords who feel most passionately about this, I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	5 Clause 29, page 14, line 4, at end insert "who shall be subject to the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code"
	5A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because the recruitment code of the Civil Service Commissioners is not appropriate to the appointment of the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 23.
	Amendment No. 5, with which the Commons disagreed, would make the Secretary of State subject to the principles of the Civil Service Commissioners' recruitment code in appointing the Director of Fair Access. The Commons disagreed with this because it is not the appropriate code for that appointment. The director will not be a civil servant; he or she will be appointed by the Secretary of State. The appropriate guidance for this appointment is that of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
	The House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said in its report, The Regulatory State, that,
	"we recommend that Ministers should remain responsible for appointing regulators, subject to Nolan rules, to ensure proper responsibility and accountability".
	We agree with that and we intend to follow the appropriate code of practice for this appointment. It is for this very sensible reason that those in another place chose to reject the amendment, and I hope that it will not be pressed.
	I turn to Amendment No. 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A. As I said when this was last debated in your Lordships' House, the amendment causes considerable difficulties which I shall summarise very briefly. First, it would remove the power of the director to issue guidance to institutions. This would make it very difficult for institutions to work out what to put in their access plans. Secondly, it would remove the regulation-making power in respect of the approval of plans. Noble Lords will be pleased to see that we want to go even further than the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and make the regulations in respect of the approval of plans subject to affirmative resolution. I shall expand on that later.
	The return of the regulation-making power under this clause will also enable us to introduce a review procedure for approval decisions, completing the structure of the amendment agreed by noble Lords in respect of variation of plans and sanctions.
	Thirdly, Amendment No. 15 would imply a duty on institutions to provide a strategic plan to the funding councils, which we believe would place a bureaucratic burden on institutions in perpetuity. The amendment also raises the problem of what would happen if the relevant authority wished to approve a plan, but the funding council had not approved the overall strategic plan or vice versa.
	In short, the Government believe that it is desirable to require separate plans for the purposes of fees provisions and that those plans should be approved only by the relevant authority. I hope that noble Lords will agree.
	I turn to Amendment No. 16, disagreed with by the Commons for their reason numbered 16A. It is inappropriate to confer a regulation-making power on either the Higher Education Funding Council for England or the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. This amendment is closely tied to Amendment No. 15 and would give regulation-making powers to the funding councils on the duration of plans.
	It is not impossible for the funding councils to make regulations but, as I have said previously, it is hardly conventional. The convention is that either the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales would make such regulations. It is not right that institutions should have to provide access plans as part of their strategic plans. Noble Lords will know that we have sought all along to minimise bureaucracy rather than add to it. Therefore it is not right that the funding councils should decide the length of access plans.
	Noble Lords will have seen that our draft regulations set the maximum duration of plans at five years. It is only a maximum and a university may propose whatever period it wishes to facilitate coherence with their own plans. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
	The Commons have disagreed with Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 for their reasons numbered 17A and 19A. The Commons believe that it is desirable that the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education should have the power to enforce the general provisions of an English approved plan, and that the relevant authority should have a corresponding power in respect of a Welsh approved plan. These amendments would mean that the director would not be able to sanction an institution for any breach of the general provisions of its plan—which includes any measure in the plan beyond those relating to fee limits. In England, that would include the measures it will take to encourage more applications from under-represented groups, such as the provision of bursaries or outreach activities.
	I think I made it clear when we last debated the issues that I was concerned about these amendments. It has always been clear that sanctions would be a rare occurrence, if they are used at all, but it is important that they should be a possibility if plans are to be of real substance.
	What we have asked is that in return for charging higher variable fees, institutions must reinvest some of the extra income in outreach and financial support. As a result of the very helpful discussions in this House, safeguards for institutions regarding sanctions have been added to the Bill, which I believe create a sensible framework for access plans. I want to express my thanks in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for the amendment he tabled which we were able to accept in principle before returning with our own amendment.
	Equally, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market and Lord Norton of Louth, who enabled us to consider a review by a third party. The thoughtfulness and wisdom of noble Lords in these areas have been extremely helpful. I am pleased that the Commons have accepted these safeguards, which are important elements of the Bill. Moreover, I hope that noble Lords will share in my delight that the Commons have accepted a number of other amendments made by noble Lords during the course of our detailed consideration.
	However, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, may be disappointed that another place did not accept the amendments tabled in her name. I can assure her of my sincere gratitude for her contribution to this Bill, not least in her suggestion, which we accepted, to give the director a role in promoting and identifying good practice. As I have said, that was accepted in another place, along with its extension following the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, relating to part-time students.
	I am also grateful for the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and other noble Lords, who argued powerfully in favour of the provisions for academic freedom, which the Bill now contains. Many noble Lords feel passionate about this issue. Lastly, I offer particular thanks to my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe. The Bill now specifically excludes admissions from the director's remit and from regulations on the content of plans.
	Briefly, I turn to Amendment No. 20. Changes were proposed in another place to clarify and strengthen the safeguards introduced by noble Lords. This amendment came about as a result of debate in this House and I am grateful to noble Lords. Although I needed some persuading, I was won over by the arguments of noble Lords who made a powerful case for a review mechanism. The Commons were also persuaded, I am glad to say, and have sought to increase the scope of the amendment that I originally tabled to cover decisions in respect of the approval of plans. That is one of the reasons it is important not to insist on Amendment No. 15, which would make these important Commons amendments impossible. I am sure noble Lords agree that, if the principle of a review is right, then it must surely apply to decisions not to approve plans, the financial implications of which would be substantial. I hope noble Lords will join me in welcoming Amendment No. 20.
	As to Amendment No. 23, I recognise the concerns that the House has had about regulation-making powers. I agree that they should be granted with care. As I said earlier, we accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and amended the Bill accordingly, when your Lordships were considering the Bill in Committee.
	But we have recognised that some noble Lords—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—were concerned about regulations relating to the approval of plans, and we now wish to go further than the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We therefore tabled an amendment during debate in another place to bring the regulation-making power in respect of the approval of plans under the affirmative procedure. We recognise that this is an important regulation-making power, as did the Commons, and I hope that noble Lords will welcome the assurance that any regulations made under this clause will now be debated.
	I should add that this procedure applies to England. The procedures in regard to regulations are different in Wales.
	I hope that I have covered all of the amendments successfully.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which the role of OFFA was greatly changed and improved in this House thanks to her listening to and considering, with her usual courtesy and commitment, the suggestions that were made. We now have an OFFA in the Bill which is very much closer to the one originally recommended by the Schwartz review—one which has promotional powers, a right of appeal against its decisions and so on. This makes it much more acceptable to academics in the system.
	As the Minister anticipated, I am of course disappointed that neither she nor the Government in another place were able to accept all the amendments that this House approved.
	I still find it puzzling that the recruitment code of the Civil Service Commissioners is thought not to be appropriate as it has been applied in other public appointments. However, we are not inclined to do more than note that—and warn, perhaps, that we shall watch very closely who is appointed. My motivation in moving the amendment was to ensure that we did not get a crony or a creature of the Secretary of State, and we shall watch very carefully to ensure that that does not happen.
	As the Minister said, Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together would have required a different kind of procedure, and I am sorry that universities will now be subjected to the double bureaucratic requirement of having to submit two sets of plans. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, as passed in this House, would have ensured that access plans were submitted as part of the already required strategic plans of universities, where I believe they belong. I think it will be very difficult to plan access arrangements without putting them into the context of all the other plans for student numbers, finance and so on.
	Amendment No. 15 clearly left the power for approval of the plans with OFFA. It would have ensured that the plans would be submitted to the funding council and passed on to OFFA. The universities will have to live with the double bureaucracy, and I regret that. Again, the system will have to be monitored as the procedures are put into train.
	I am most of all sorry that Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 were rejected. I am particularly sorry that the Minister in the other place argued that the Lords amendments would remove from OFFA the power of sanction if an institution reneged on the commitment in its plans in respect of the fees that it would charge and the bursaries that it would give. Our amendments most clearly did not remove that power. We were most careful to ensure that OFFA, through HEFCE, was left with the power to sanction universities which reneged on their financial commitments, as it is proper it should do. Our amendments would simply have removed OFFA's powers to recommend to HEFCE unlimited fines on universities for very ill-defined offences.
	I have asked before—and I repeat it because it bears consideration and thought on the part of the Minister and her department—that if a university, for example, puts in its plans that it will visit 100 inner-city schools and then discovers that 20-odd of those schools are not willing to accept visits and it can therefore visit only 70-odd schools, will the university then be liable to sanction? Will OFFA recommend to the funding council that it should have part or all of its grant removed?
	I ask the question because, as was made clear by the chief executive of HEFCE when giving evidence to the House of Commons Education and Skills Committee last March, HEFCE already has powers to regulate and to punish universities which do not have adequate access plans. He said that HEFCE has powers to withhold funds from them and powers to punish them by putting in new regulations about what they must do the following year.
	Given that there will be two authorities with the power to punish universities, can the Minister confirm that, if we accept the other place's rejection of these amendments, the power to punish on access will be removed from the funding council and kept solely within OFFA? It would be absolutely monstrous for universities to remain subject to this kind of punitive action from two different directions.
	I am very disappointed that these powers remain in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's response to my questions.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I agree with the first point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and I thank the Government for the many significant concessions they have made on the working of OFFA. Universities UK also identified a number of concerns about the original proposals. I am satisfied that all of them have been addressed, with the exception of the provision relating to the promotion of higher education in Wales.
	I very much welcome Amendments Nos. 20, 20A and 20B, which have been accepted in another place. They create an appeals mechanism for OFFA and subject the regulations in Clause 32 to affirmative procedures. As other noble Lords have said in this and previous debates, I very much appreciate the way in which my noble friend the Minister has listened to my concerns and those of other noble Lords during the passage of the Bill. I thank her most warmly.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I share the disappointment of my noble friend Lady Perry that the Government have not been able to make the extra leap which would have completed the task she set herself. Her mission was to change the character of OFFA from one of an organisation with a big stick to one which worked positively with the grain, which I believe is there in the universities, to widen access.
	In fairness to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, the Minister, and to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, the Government have come quite a long way down the route in their consideration of her amendments and her arguments. Perhaps modesty forbade my noble friend from drawing too much attention to that. I am certainly grateful to her and to my noble friend Lord MacGregor, who worked so hard on the appeals mechanism that has now become an independent review mechanism. I recall raising this—if I am allowed to mention private meetings with the Minister—and being told to think of some scheme that will work. I was extremely grateful to my noble friends Lord Norton and Lord MacGregor for having the aptitude to come up with a scheme which not only worked but satisfied the civil servants within the Minister's department, because I know that her heart was in the right place on this.
	I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that it is interesting, is it not, that these amendments on academic freedom, appeal mechanisms and the structure and functions of OFFA have been accepted in this place and not in the other place? Credit must be given to the Members of this House on the Cross Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches as well as our Benches who worked together to draw attention to the deficiencies in the Bill and had the Gatling gun with which to bring down the Government's position if required.
	Although I commend the Government for accepting the amendments, it is a little depressing that in the other place so few amendments were made in the initial consideration of the Bill. As my noble friend has pointed out, I had the impression from reading the speech of the Minister for higher education that he may have been looking at the wrong speaking note when he responded to some of these amendments. I could not quite reconcile what the amendment said with what the Minister was saying. I know that his officials would not have left him completely unbriefed, so I can only imagine that he was dealing with an old copy of some papers, or whatever. Or perhaps he did not show the dedication and commitment to detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has shown throughout the Bill's stages. I hope that that remark is not too damaging to her. My impression is that some of the Ministers in another place do not read the proceedings in this place, so she may be protected from any action in that respect.
	I share my noble friend's disappointment that the Government have not been prepared to accept, in particular, the amendments to which she drew attention. However, the Minister has done very well in persuading her colleagues to make very substantial improvements to the regime. I think that we would be better off without it altogether, but we are content to leave that to the electorate to decide.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, welcome Amendments Nos. 20, 20A, 23 and 23A, which carry through the appeals mechanism and the affirmative resolution issue that we debated at some length. I am delighted to see both those provisions incorporated into the Bill.
	I share a lot of the disappointment expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, at the fact that the Government have not seen fit to accept at least the spirit of her Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. It seems to me very sensible that OFFA should have been aligned with HEFCE and that the procedures requiring plans should have been aligned with the overall strategic plans required by universities. These two aspects should work together. I have argued right from the beginning that it is all very well saying that HEFCE is a funding organisation and OFFA is regulatory, but in many of the ways in which the system works, HEFCE is, and remains, a regulatory organisation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, pointed out, it already imposes considerable sanctions if universities do not act in accordance with its guidance.
	Nevertheless, we are where we are. As a result of the debates and the amendments which were accepted in this House, the face of OFFA has been changed considerably. It moves from being a vindictive and punitive organisation to one that has the makings of helping universities to develop plans to widen participation and open up access to students who may not traditionally have attended university. I look forward to seeing how this organisation works out over the longer term. Like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, I assure the Government that we shall be watching very closely to make sure that it functions benignly rather than malignly.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has done. I do not wish to embarrass her or make her blush, but much of the way in which we have moved on the issues surrounding access bears witness to the noble Baroness's commitment and that of other noble Lords as well.
	I believe that we have a better OFFA. I believe that we have made sure that admissions and academic freedom in particular, about which your Lordships feel very passionately, are well protected. In a sense, it is the role of the House to do that, given the expertise that exists within it on higher education. I am not at all surprised that this House has done so. The Government are pleased to have been able to move on those amendments, having listened carefully to the arguments.
	As to my career, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has already toasted me. He said that in a private meeting I asked him to come up with a scheme that would work. It is good that I am putting the Opposition to work in this respect, but that may be it as far as I am concerned.
	The Butler amendment deals with the noble Baroness's point about how OFFA and the director will work. We have been very clear about making sure that where an institution has done what it has said it would, we are input-measuring and not outcome-measuring. In that sense, I do not think that the noble Baroness need worry. I know that she will keep a watchful eye on this, as ever, and I shall be at the Dispatch Box—if I am still here—to discuss it.
	Of course, HEFCE does not have the sanctioning powers of OFFA, and we will make sure that they work well together. We have debated the differences between the two at many stages of the Bill, and I do not propose to go over it now. But it is important that they work well. We will seek to ensure that they do, and noble Lords will make sure that we do.
	Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, my right honourable friend should have said that Amendment No. 17 would prevent any sanctions applying as a result of a breach of the general provisions of the plan, which includes everything except the fee limits. He has written to opposition spokesmen. That letter has been copied, I believe, to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, to clarify the position, and there is also a copy in the Library.
	On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to agree with what the Commons have done, particularly on regulation-making powers. Although I know that some noble Lords feel some regret, I hope that they will not press the amendments.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	15 Clause 32, leave out Clause 32 and insert the following new clause—
	"Approval of plans (No. 2)
	(1) The Funding Councils shall provide to the relevant authority copies of that part of Institutions Strategic Plans relating to Fair Access arrangements, which will then comment to each institution on the content of its plan and may, if it thinks fit, approve the plan.
	(2) The relevant authority shall require each institution to provide an account of the financial assistance it has provided to students.
	(3) The relevant authority shall report to Parliament each year on progress on the plans and on financial assistance which has been provided to students under the plans."
	15A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is desirable to require separate plans for the purposes of the fees provisions and to require those plans to be approved only by the relevant authority in accordance with regulations.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 15A.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	16 Clause 33, page 15, line 39, leave out from "made" to end of line 41 and insert "by the Funding Councils"
	16A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is inappropriate to confer a regulation-making power on the Higher Education Funding Council for England or the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 16A.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	17 Clause 35, page 16, line 12, leave out "or (c)"
	17A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is desirable that the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education should have power to enforce the general provisions of an English approved plan.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	19 Clause 36, page 16, line 31, leave out "or (c)"
	19A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is desirable that the relevant authority in relation to Wales should have power to enforce the general provisions of a Welsh approved plan.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 19A.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	20 After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
	"Review of decisions made by relevant authority
	Regulations made by virtue of section 34, 35(2)(b) or 36(3)(b) must include provision—
	(a) requiring any decision of the relevant authority under section 34, 35 or 36 affecting the governing body of an institution to have effect in the first instance as a provisional decision,
	(b) enabling the governing body of the institution to apply for a review of the provisional decision to a person, or panel of persons, appointed in accordance with the regulations—
	(i) in relation to England, by the Secretary of State, or
	(ii) in relation to Wales, by the Assembly,
	(c) enabling the Secretary of State or the Assembly to pay remuneration and allowances to any person so appointed,
	(d) ixprescribing the grounds on which an application for the review of a provisional decision may be made, and
	(e) requiring the relevant authority to reconsider its provisional decision having regard to any recommendation of the person or panel."
	The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendments—
	20A Line 3, after "section" insert "32,"
	20B Line 6, after "section" insert "32,"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20A and 20B to Lords Amendment No. 20.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	LORDS AMENDMENT
	23 Clause 43, page 21, line 17, at end insert "or
	(c) regulations to which subsection (3A) applies.
	(3A) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made by the Secretary of State by virtue of section 31(1A) or 35(2)(c) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
	23A The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendment—
	Line 5, after "31(1A)" insert "32"

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23A to Lords Amendment No. 23.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Partnership Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that she, having been informed of the purport of the Civil Partnership Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.
	Clause 1 [Civil Partnership]:

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 4, leave out "relationship" and insert "contract"

Lord Higgins: My Lords, this Bill is in a constant state of confusion. I am never quite sure what is going to happen next. In that context, I was not expecting a statement on the prerogative. Perhaps, at some stage in the proceedings, the Minister will be kind enough to explain exactly why it is necessary in this case.
	We have debated Amendment No. 1 on previous occasions, both in Committee and on Report, but the context in which it is now relevant has changed quite significantly as a result of the other amendments which have been passed by your Lordships. Since the Bill now defines civil partnerships much more widely than before, the expression "contract" rather than "relationship" seems even more appropriate, not least because it will not necessarily offend the sensibilities of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in the same way as it was previously going to do.
	Perhaps I may say a word about the interventions which I made in the speech of the Government Chief Whip the other day. It is very difficult in such exchanges to make one's position absolutely clear. I was trying to be helpful. I am concerned that if the Bill now goes to another place, we will be able to debate it on its return only in the context of the amendments which have been carried in another place. Therefore, other amendments to which we might have expected a response from the Government in this House will not be possible. I think that that is the situation which now exists. In particular, there will be no opportunity to cover some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was going to make. Therefore, it is not a very satisfactory way of proceeding. That is why I was concerned to establish from Chief Whip exactly what the position was. His simply saying that we would proceed in the normal way did not take fully into account the way in which we were now likely to proceed in the context of the Bill as it now stands.
	The Government seem to have changed their position also with regard to responding to amendments. The other day, their basic position was that they were not going to respond at all to amendments and, generally speaking, were not going to move their own amendments. They seem to have changed their position as far as that is concerned. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is going to happen. A number of government amendments now appear on the Order Paper. Are they the only ones which would be unaffected by the amendment which your Lordships carried last week? Are all the others affected by it?
	Nevertheless, as far as concerns Amendment No. 1, the arguments which we put forward previously are, if anything, reinforced and I hope that they will find acceptance in your Lordships' House.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I want to make it clear that I retain the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I acquit him entirely of responsibility for what occurred on Report. As he rightly said, it is precisely because his party and others have transformed the Bill away from the concept of loving couples and of a relationship that he can—

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I made it absolutely clear on several occasions that whereas the noble Lord's party and the government party were whipped, we were on a free vote. Therefore, he is wrong in saying that the change was introduced by my party.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in that case, I apologise for that mistake. However, the noble Lord is perfectly logical and correct in saying that once one moves away from the notion of couples, the notion of a relationship becomes a strange one, because one can move from the notion of status and relationship to one of simple contract. That debases the entire purpose of the Bill. It is because we on these Benches strongly object to the way in which the Bill has been wrecked that we object to this consequential amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall deal first with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He asked me why we had moved the Queen's consent statement. The Queen's consent was required for Clause 59(2) of the current draft of the Civil Partnership Bill. The clause makes provisions that correspond to those in Section 58(2) of the Family Law Act 1986. Clause 59(2) states:
	"Any declaration under Section 58 binds her Majesty and all other persons".
	A declaration under Section 58 is one which is about whether a civil partnership was, at its inception, valid and whether it subsisted on a specified date or about whether it has been dissolved, annulled or is the subject of legal separation. The Queen's consent was signified to what became Section 58(2) of the Family Law Act 1986 at Third Reading in both Houses. There is sufficient provision for Northern Ireland in the Bill at Clause 177. I hope it is now clear why we need that provision.
	I turn to the second question to which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me to reply. It related to the Government's position that was expressed last Thursday and today. I should make a number of points clear. We have always believed, and we believed that noble Lords opposite accepted it, that the Bill was a good Bill, because it sought to address an issue of unfairness and lack of parity of treatment and all appeared to agree with it. It was very carefully drafted. It was drafted so that all the provisions interrelated one with the other. Noble Lords will remember that consultation on the Bill started almost three years ago. During the period of preparation, we have had to trawl through a huge amount of legislation. Some of it goes to back 1681; that is, the Declaration Act, which is dealt with in Scotland. Your Lordships might have heard reference to it.
	The provisions of the Bill were therefore all part of one construction. That construction was predicated on there being a same-sex couple civil partnership and not broadened out to others. The Government remain committed to the Bill as originally drafted.
	In accordance with parliamentary procedure, we must of course scrutinise each Bill as it comes before us, but by going forward with Third Reading today, we hope to make clear our commitment to the continuance of the Bill and to take forward work on the Bill in a manner that is coherent and consistent with our convictions and the choices made by this House.
	As noble Lords opposite failed to lay consequential amendments predicated on the change that was sought, the proposal that was put before this House was changed in one degree, but did not take into account all the other changes which would flow from that significant amendment. The Government's case was that we did not agree that the definition of civil partnership should be so widened for all the reasons that I gave previously. The amendments—your Lordships will know that there were hundreds of them—were so interlinked that it was very difficult to disentangle them. Of all the amendments, we have managed to identify only 21 which remain wholly unaffected by the amendment which was passed by noble Lords last week.
	Perhaps it is right that I give some examples. Noble Lords will appreciate that the change which was voted on last week brought about some internal inconsistencies and anomalies for the scheme; for example, because of the change which your Lordships passed last week, a woman who formed a civil partnership with her grandfather would, under Clause 238(1), have her own mother as a step-daughter. Such unintended consequences run throughout the Bill as a result of the change made last week.
	The Government are sensitive to that because we must speak to the Bill, not as we crafted it, but as it currently stands. To do otherwise would be to fail to respect the decision made by this House. We will participate in debate as far as we are able but, at times, we will be limited by the context of the House's decision on Report. That was not of our making but it is the position with which we now have to deal.
	As noble Lords know, the Government decided not to move our amendments on Report. For the same reasons, we have decided not to bring many of those amendments back now. They would have elaborated or altered provisions concerning how people would be treated as a consequence of forming a civil partnership that was restricted to same-sex couples. Noble Lords opposite may have had a free vote but, if I may respectfully and very gently say so, it was significant that they seemed to me to vote in the same direction. That brought about changes.
	I shall give just one other example. Under the Bill as amended, a grandfather could leave a survivor's pension to a civil partner grandson. Of course, aside from the fundamental change to the principles underlying the pensions system in this country, this would have significant cost implications. Our estimate is that the cost would be in the region of £2.25 billion a year. I am, of course, aware that noble Lords opposite have expressed the wish, and the intention, to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. If that is seriously contemplated, one wonders how the dramatic increase in costs will be funded. We must look at consequences and deal with them.
	So, although we do not feel able to put down some of our amendments, the Government do want to respect this House and its decision. Therefore, we have brought back only those amendments that now make sense. If noble Lords opposite wish to move some of the amendments that the Government brought forward on Report, that is their prerogative, but it is a nonsense. If they do that, they will find that the synergy that was in the Bill has gone. As the concept of civil partnership has now been fundamentally redefined, the Government no longer consider it appropriate for civil partnership to entail all the consequences originally envisaged because we now have a different Bill.
	The Government also have serious concerns about the effect of the amendment on Report. We are considering the matter further, but we believe that it may mean that the Bill would not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because of the onerous restrictions related to age, cohabitation and consanguinity that they impose on this new category of civil partner.
	Furthermore, many of the registration and dissolution procedures now make little sense when applied to the new group, in the same way that some of the rights and responsibilities consequential on the formation of a civil partnership are no longer appropriate. I shall give noble Lords other examples: if a son entered into a civil partnership with his elderly mother, with whom he lived and for whom he cared, he might lose entitlement to jobseeker's allowance, based on his mother's ability to support him financially.
	Should a daughter in a civil partnership with her mother wish to marry, she would have to go through a formal court-based dissolution of the civil partnership first. If her mother had become mentally incapable, or objected to the marriage, she would have to live apart for five years. These are serious disincentives to marriage. Moreover, if she did seek a dissolution, the daughter would be entitled to a share of her mother's property, which might mean that the elderly mother would be dispossessed of her home because it would have to be sold and shared to make provision for her civil partner. So depending on the circumstances, this might require the mother to sell the family home in order to provide a settlement. I am sure that noble Lords did not have that in mind. She would also have to prove irretrievable breakdown of the relationship. That is very difficult to prove when it is with your mother. It might be that there is not an irretrievable breakdown. The mother might agree that the daughter or the son could live with the new partner in her home. How will that be dealt with?
	I regret to tell your Lordships that the amendment made a nonsense of the Bill in the form in which it was considered. So our decision was not pique or temper but acceptance. We accept the nature of this House. We accept that this House can make decisions and that we are bound by the choices that it makes. But we are all bound by the consequences of the decisions we make. The Government accept those consequences. But we do not agree that this is the right Bill. We have said time and again from this Dispatch Box that we have sympathy for the concerns noble Lords opposite have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised some of those issues with his Bill. There has been assent from these Benches about those concerns, but fiscal arrangements cannot be turned back to the 1930s. It is for that reason that we were not able to respond. Today we will respond as we are able but we will take into account the reality of the decision that this House knowingly took last Thursday. We are a grown-up House and we must accept the responsibility for our action.
	In relation to Amendment No. 1, we still believe that "relationship" is of real importance and signifies a difference from a mere "contract". We are dealing with intimate connections between people and we do not think that "contract" accurately expresses what we are seeking to uphold. The very nature of last Thursday's amendment emphasised that we are talking about the tender relationships that can happen within families, relationships of support. They are relationships. They are not contracts and we think that it would be inappropriate to describe them as such. It demeans the quality of the relationships that we hope that people in these partnerships will be able to enjoy.

Lord Elton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, she has touched on a great many subjects. As a Back-Bencher who was fully involved in the proceedings in this House, I assure her that there was no Whip on these Benches, formal or informal. I voted voluntarily, as a friend to the Bill, because I believed, among other things, that the change would remove from the people who the Bill is supposed to help the resentment by others who did not share the same benefits.
	I welcome the full way in which the Minister has explained the Government's conduct last week. That has removed a good deal of anxiety on our part. Normally, this House does not send Bills to the other place in a defective state. Efforts are usually made by the Government and the Opposition to remedy defects that occur. Of course, that would be a major operation on this occasion and I presume that that is the Government's reason for not doing it. But I welcome the Minister's explanation.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the number of amendments would have meant a wholesale redrafting that could not have been undertaken without many months' work.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join with my noble friend Lord Elton in expressing our thanks to the Minister for her explanation, including the explanation with regard to the Royal prerogative. She said that the Bill had been very carefully drafted. None the less, given the legislation with which we are faced, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the number of government amendments. I understand that some changes had to be made at the last moment with regard to Northern Ireland. However, generally speaking, as regards areas affecting pensions and so on, a great many government amendments to Bills are tabled the subject of which one might reasonably expect to have been dealt with before the relevant Bill was published.
	I am grateful for the estimate of costs. I am astonished at the figure of £2.25 billion. However, if one wished to extend the provisions of the Bill at a later stage, as the amendment that was carried last week does, it would be helpful if the Minister would place in the Library the calculation that establishes the figure of £2.25 billion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 6, after "is" insert "only"

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will understand why I have tabled this amendment again. It was tabled as Amendment No. 5 on Report. The arguments that I put forward today are exactly the same as the ones that I put forward on Report. They can be found at col. 1415 of Hansard of 24 June. I put forward the same arguments today as we had a sense that the Government were slightly gagged in terms of what they were able to say on Report. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this amendment seeks clarification that the relationship of civil partnership is formed only at the point when two people register as civil partners to each other. In responding to the amendment I speak to the overall principle set out in Clause 1 and also refer to a specific issue relating to Scotland raised by the noble Duke.
	The provisions in Clause 1 make it clear that a civil partnership is a new legal relationship formed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Bill. Put simply, the new legal relationship of civil partnership which is created by the Bill can be formed in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland only by registration. It comes into being once the second proposed civil partner signs a civil partnership document. Couples who register an overseas relationship under the law of another country will, subject to certain conditions, be treated as having formed a civil partnership under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Bill. Again, this can be done only by registration.
	I hope that the noble Duke will understand, therefore, that there is no need for the insertion of the word "only" as it is clear from the Bill that there is no other way to form a civil partnership than by the procedure referred to in Clause 1. I hope that that will suffice.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I hope that in future years any Scottish lawyers who feel a little too contentious will read the Minister's remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 9, after "4" insert "(subject to section 253(3))"

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, it is refreshing to note that noble Lords on the Front Bench are somewhat less liverish than they were on Thursday of last week. That, none the less, does not prevent my drawing attention to the original drafting of the Bill and to what it has become.
	My basic objection to the Bill is well known; I have not sought to hide it. Noble Lords may be interested if I point out that the Bill arrived here as a single issue Bill so to speak—at least, that is what we thought it was—with 258 pages, but we now have a Bill of 383 pages. The Bill arrived as a government Bill to which, subsequently, in Committee, the Government tabled 171 amendments. The Government tabled those amendments to their own Bill. Noble Lords managed to table 116 amendments.
	On Report the Government tabled 150 amendments to their own Bill. Noble Lords managed to table 55. Here we are today at Third Reading with another 22 government amendments. With respect I believe that that is an indication of government incompetence. It is a case of take an idea, table it and then build a Bill round it by means of 343 government amendments in total. I know that there is an overlap but that is really what it means in essence.
	Not only do we have a Bill with which I profoundly disagree, but we also have a decision and an insistence by the Government that despite what the majority of people in Northern Ireland feel about this, and the need to have the substance and the consequences of this Bill debated in Northern Ireland, the matter will be left to a fairly brief and formal introduction by the Secretary of State. I believe that that is wrong. Northern Ireland's culture is very, very different from what I call the London club scene. I could say the same for other areas throughout Great Britain. Their overall culture is somewhat different from what I call, for want of a better phrase, the London club scene.
	As well as beginning to recover from 30 years of terrorism Northern Ireland is in the process of recovering from years of systematic sexual abuse of children. As a consequence there is a sensitivity among the people of Northern Ireland in respect of that particular abuse.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, with great respect I interrupt the noble Lord. I am not sure whether procedurally I am doing the right thing, but someone will surely tell me if I am not.
	If the noble Lord is linking the idea of civil partnerships with child abuse, that link therefore suggests that homosexual people abuse children. I have carried out a considerable amount of work in Northern Ireland through Childline. The statistics show that on the whole heterosexual people are far more likely than homosexual people to abuse children. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my asking him to correct me if I am wrong in assuming that that was not the connection he intended to make. I have not taken part in proceedings on the Bill but I wanted to clarify that point.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I do not in total seek to disagree with her. I used the term "systematic abuse" of children. Without wishing to open up old wounds that affect institutions which have been guilty of that kind of systematic abuse, I cite but one example; that is, Kincora. That is probably the best known case. There is no doubt that those involved in the Kincora scandal are homosexuals.
	It is not my wish to open old wounds and make things more difficult for people who indulge, for whatever reason, in abnormal sexual activity, but what happens behind closed doors and what is systematic abuse are two entirely different matters. As someone from Northern Ireland, I would be wrong not to draw attention to the fact that—

Lord Alli: My Lords—

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I will give way in a moment.

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I want to finish this point. Cases can always be made. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, wrote me a letter on a remark that I made about there not being systematic indulgence in "gay bashing" in Northern Ireland. It drew my attention to the fact that a Democratic Unionist Party councillor was convicted a couple of months ago of harassment of a colleague. That is a very poor argument. For anyone who had been involved in politics in Northern Ireland, such as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, or myself, harassment would be the least that we would expect of some members of the Democratic Unionist Party. Many of us have suffered physical abuse and attacks from members of that party, so it does not make the argument for the noble Lord, Lord Alli.

Lord Alli: My Lords, I shall deal with some of the noble Lord's points on a more substantive basis during the debate. I simply want to tell him how offensive his contributions, both last Thursday and today, have been to many gay people up and down this land, given the kind of language that he has used twice in the two different debates. I suggest that he think very carefully about the tone that he adopts during the debate. We have all agreed that, hitherto in this House, the debates in the area have been sensitive and co-operative, with a sense of consensus prevailing. He is breaking that consensus, and should think wisely about his words.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I have listened very carefully, and I recognise the difficulties that exist. I have indicated again and again that the last thing that I have in mind is to provoke any antagonism towards people like the noble Lord, Lord Alli. Those of us who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and offensive from a religious perspective to many people in the United Kingdom also feel that we have at least an equal right to put our opinion, as he puts his.
	The noble Lord raises the issue of being offensive. I respond by asking him whether he read the article in the Sunday Times last Sunday for which the headline stated:
	"British Airways flies into a gay boycott".
	That article specifically cited intimidation and threats against someone who did not agree with the Bill. There is no doubt in my mind that the threat by Stonewall—

Lord Elton: My Lords, I may be able to help the noble Lord and the House. Am I not right in thinking that the purpose of his amendment is to see that the Bill does not have effect in Northern Ireland until the Assembly, having reconvened, has the ability to express its opinion on it? That is a question of devolution, not of all the issues being raked over now. Will he bring us to discuss that, because that is the basis on which I shall take my decision on which Lobby to go into, if he decides to divide the House? What he says now does not advance his cause at all, so far as I am concerned.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord and agree with what he said. However, I find myself as a voice for Northern Ireland, ultimately suggesting that the Bill not be extended to it, as he commended to me. I felt that I had to try to indicate why the Bill should not be extended.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that, under the Northern Ireland Act, one matter not transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly is responsibility for compatibility with the human rights convention? Like the government of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland's devolved Assembly cannot breach basic human rights, including those of homosexuals, if that would be in breach of the European convention. Is that not the position under the devolution legislation?

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt better versed than I am in European legislation. I accept what he indicates, but "human rights" must surely apply to the people of Northern Ireland as well as to individuals. When there is a conflict, decisions have to be made. I do not want to pursue the issue any further, but I was distracted for a moment when I mentioned the article in the Sunday Times, which displays a degree of aggressiveness from that small group of people. They are not saying that they want human rights; they are saying, "If we don't get our way, we will take action that will penalise other individuals".
	Northern Ireland is in a difficult period of transition. It has had to grapple with systematic abuse of children, and—be I right or wrong; someone can contradict me—I have seen a degree of organised abuse by homosexual elements. Imagine that I open my door and, on my left-hand side, my next-door neighbours are living in a civil partnership. Imagine that, when I open the same door and look on my right-hand side, I find a 60 year-old lady who has spent her life looking after her 90 year-old mother. Imagine that my children or grandchildren walk out and look at the situation that will be brought about by the Bill. What will the implied situation be when same-sex people have privileges denied to the mother and daughter?
	Finally, I listened to the noble Baroness and heard her explain how a daughter would become a mother-in-law of her own mother. She was referring to a grand-daughter living with her grandmother. The mother in that family would become the daughter-in-law. I thought that the Government told us that the Bill had nothing to do with marriage and the relationships brought about by marriage. In an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, also indicated the cost factor. I thought that she had said at an earlier stage that this matter did not relate to cost.
	So, on the basis of what I have heard so far, I believe that Northern Ireland should not be included—that,
	"such an order must not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
	I beg to move.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, because he has introduced a degree of transparency into his arguments and made clear the real purpose of the amendment, which is fundamentally to oppose the whole purpose of the original Bill, rather than the question of devolution.
	I shall restrain myself from being seduced by the noble Lord into wandering into the various by-paths of his argument and I shall stick as closely as possible to the content of the amendment itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has advised. There are a number of serious problems with the amendment. First, it puzzles me that I have heard a Unionist Peer speak about excluding Northern Ireland. I recall many Unionist colleagues—not the noble Lord, although he may have done—protesting, as I did, about the anti-terrorist legislation that restricted many people to Northern Ireland for the protection of the rest of the United Kingdom. It was a form of internal exile. I and many Unionists protested against that as well as an overwhelming number of nationalists. Yet, we have a suggestion that would introduce a form of relationship, partnership or contract between two individuals that could be entered into by Northern Ireland citizens if they were living in this part of the United Kingdom, but they would be unable to live peacefully in Northern Ireland. They would be in a form of internal exile within the United Kingdom. I should have thought that that was a curious proposition for a Unionist in particular.
	Another colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, rightly describes himself as "a voice" from Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord is not the only voice from Northern Ireland. I suspect that if the matter could be discussed in the Northern Ireland Assembly there might not be the degree of unanimity across all the parties suggested by the noble Lord's speech. I shall speculate a little as to what might happen, given the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, who is a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Bill were to be passed in its original form, one might say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, "Well, as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly you could perhaps bring forward a Private Member's Bill to reverse this". But he could not, because before a Private Member's Bill can be presented for First Reading in the Northern Ireland Assembly the Speaker has to ascertain whether or not the Bill conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights. It would ill-befit me to speak for any future Speaker that there might or might not be, but I can say with some degree of surety that such a Bill would not have been given a First Reading during my own period as Speaker because I have no doubt that it would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. It would also contravene Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, makes much play of the huge number of amendments that the Government brought forward and I have some sympathy with what he says. However, I recall that when the Northern Ireland Act was being passed there was a massive number of amendments, many of them occasioned by deals that the Government made with his party and his leader to ensure that they would go along with the Act. So, one always has to be a little cautious about making accusations. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the amendment would contravene Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act which specifically forbids any kind of discrimination on sexual grounds. That means that when the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, says that this is not a matter of human rights but a matter of devolution, he is entirely wrong in law. It is a matter of human rights.
	That brings me to the question of human rights and to the question of culture, religion and the views of local people. I do not presume—and it would be improper for anyone to presume—the outcome of a debate in any legislative assembly. That would not be proper, as the assembly would speak for itself. However, let us assume that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was correct. I have struggled greatly with the notion of human rights for a number of years and one matter seems fundamental. It is about human rights—not Northern Irish rights, not Irish rights, not European rights. As the deputy president of Liberal International and the chairman of its human rights committee, I have spent much time confronting oppressors in Asia who describe "Asian rights" as being something culturally different from human rights and the West. I do not accept that. Human rights are rights that people have by dint of being born as human beings. So the idea that there should be a different set of human rights for people in Northern Ireland because of the culture is, to me, problematic—to the point where I have considerable doubts about a matter which I would otherwise support, the notion of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The strength of human rights is that they transcend local communities and national states and that those who abuse human rights should not be able to find sanctuary behind national boundaries. That is part of the purpose of this whole exercise, as far as I am concerned.
	I look at the position of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and his colleagues, who have religious convictions which I would share in many circumstances; and I look at Christian communities in states which are dominated by fundamentalist Islamic governments who wish to introduce legislation that would be wholly in accordance with the views of the overwhelming majority of people in those countries, but which would be oppressive of Christian minorities. I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, would quite rightly use the opportunities of this House to demand that Her Majesty's Government made strong representations against any government that would do such a thing in respect of Christian, Jewish or whatever other minorities in other parts of the world. Yet, we cannot make fish of one and flesh of another. We cannot say that other countries should respect the rights of those with whom we share an affinity, but then say that we have the right to set aside the human rights of others on the grounds of cultural and religious thoughts and sensitivities in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the island or in the UK as a whole.
	I have great difficulty in seeing the rationale—the legal, thoughtful, reflective argument—in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, because they do not fit his Unionist commitments.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I shall not detain the House for long, but he and others make much play of human rights. I would not advocate intrusion into the human rights of people because they were homosexual, but the Bill, although it is paraded as an extension of human rights, is nothing to do with fundamental human rights. It is about financial implications for homosexuals. That is the sole purpose of the Bill as I see it and I should be interested to hear the noble Lord's explanation of that aspect.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I hesitate to enter into the debate. Knowing the noble Lord as I do, I fear that were I to answer he might wish again to interject and I would not want to say no.
	It seems to me that one of the most fundamental rights of all can be set even beside the right to life and not to be murdered—and the noble Lord is familiar with the breach of that right in our part of the world. It is the right to have close, confiding, lasting, intimate relationships. Without them, no place, no money, no property, no ambition—nothing—amounts to any value. Life is about relationships or it is about nothing at all.
	We do not choose all our relationships. We tend to acquire our parents and siblings too late to make choices about them, but they are our relations. We live and work with them, we value them and they enrich our lives. However, we also have the opportunity to choose our relationships. It seems to me to be a fundamental human right to be able to choose the person with whom you wish to spend your life and with whom you wish to have a real bond. I suspect that we may differ, but for me this is a question of fundamental human rights. It does not matter how large the majority that is against or how small the minority that is satisfied, for me it is fundamental matter.
	I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I know that there are concerns about carers and others and I hope that at the next election we will see in the manifestos of all the parties a commitment to address this difficult question. I do not want to make myself my own grandfather or some other complicated piece of nonsense out of a piece of otherwise reasonable legislation.
	However, as I listened to the argument and tried to follow its rationality, I reached the conclusion that the opposition to the original Bill was less to do with rational argument and more to do with fundamental feelings. Those are important matters, but it is perhaps not the best way for us to construct legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, to consider whether he really wants to presume upon the vote of the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I had not intended to speak today, but I feel that I must, for two reasons. First, as I said on Report, I did not then move my amendment relating to Northern Ireland solely because the Assembly, which is in suspension, should have the right to discuss the Bill. I said that purely on the basis of knowing something about the Northern Ireland situation and knowing quite a lot about the situation in the island of Ireland. I know the sensitivities and I am totally aware that no one in this House does not want the Assembly to be reinstated. It seemed to me that that would show the people of Northern Ireland that they had some say in their future. That was all—that was the only reason.
	Today I was deeply moved by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I have always had the highest regard for him, and his remarks about relationships made me quite emotional. And of course he is right—life without close relationships, be they familial, same-sex or whatever, is not one worth living.
	Secondly, much has been said today about the Bill being emasculated—no one has used that word, but it seems to me that everyone believes that to be the case—by an amendment which I moved and which was carried by a substantial majority in this House last Thursday. If the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had been here last Thursday, he would probably have been very sympathetic to that amendment because it hit exactly the point he made about relationships.
	I want no unpleasantness about the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, began to allude to that today. I have been at the receiving end of a great deal of unpleasantness—and, pleading my own case, I believe it is unwarranted and unjustified. However, that is the way it is. If you agree to take a role in your Lordships' House as a parliamentarian, if you have the honour to be appointed, as I was, you have the right and the duty to contribute to the proceedings of this House on the basis of your experience and expertise. And I believe that it is rather unfair then to be targeted just because you, in all conscience, have tried to contribute to the best of your ability, experience and expertise.
	I do not want to make special pleading on this issue, but I hope that by standing here now and saying what I have said I have shown that in everything I have said on the Bill I have wanted the best for legislation in this country. In particular, when I brought forward the amendment last week on Northern Ireland, it was to allow the people of Northern Ireland also to have their say. That was the only reason and that is why I have intervened now.

Lord Henley: My Lords, a week ago, I spoke from this Dispatch Box on a free vote in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain on Northern Ireland. A week later—perhaps a week is a long time in politics—I cannot offer the same support to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I am sympathetic to the picture he paints and to the fact that matters are different in Northern Ireland. I believe—and perhaps many others will agree, however they wish to vote—that the Government could have handled the matter with slightly greater sensitivity in terms of consultations in Northern Ireland. However, I accept that it is not a devolved matter and that if the Bill is to be enacted it should be on a United Kingdom basis.
	Having said that, I stress again that on these Benches this is a matter for a free vote and that I would not be able to offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, in relation to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I deeply deplore the way in which she has been subjected to targeted abuse and the way in which a boycott of British Airways is being advanced by some who, like me, strongly disagree with her views. Attempts have been made to persuade shareholders that she should even be removed from the board of British Airways and that people should not fly with British Airways.
	All of that I regard as quite disgraceful. She has the same rights to freedom of speech as anyone else. When debating the matter, we are covered by the great privileges of this House and Parliament to enable that to happen. I hope that my words will be heeded, as one of the great supporters of the Bill, by members of the gay and lesbian community who so deplore what the noble Baroness has done that they have resorted to what I believe to be base tactics which should not be pursued.
	Secondly, in the light of what has been said by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, it would be a gross anti- climax for me to say much at all, except by way of footnote, but I want to make a few brief points from these Benches. First, it is not fair to attack the Government for incompetence in tabling a large number of amendments in relation to Northern Ireland. It would be especially inappropriate for the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrat Party to make that attack. It has not been made this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. It is unfair because we were offered by the Government detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I both agreed, and said, that pre-legislative scrutiny would not be necessary. We were warned by the Government on behalf of our parties through the usual channels that, if there were no pre-legislative scrutiny, a shoal of amendments would have to be tabled later in order to deal with Northern Ireland for the good reason that there had to be very detailed consultation within Northern Ireland. Therefore, it would, indeed, be a case of double standards if we were now to criticise the Government.
	My third point—I speak as a lawyer and a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—is that there is no doubt that the Bill seeks to give effect to a basic human right. I suppose that it is a right to equal treatment without discrimination in one's private life. That is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Human Rights Act.
	As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who, in view of his office in the Assembly, has spoken with enormous authority—I speak as a lawyer—there is no doubt that the devolution legislation in the Northern Ireland Act limits the powers of the Assembly and the Northern Ireland administration, compelling them to act compatibly with the European convention. This is not a transferred matter. Therefore, if these amendments were passed, there would be a blatant denial of equal protection in the law across the UK. That would be incompatible with the European convention and the Human Rights Act.
	For 50 years, Parliament was unable to eliminate religious discrimination in Northern Ireland and was even unable to debate it because of the curious convention in the other place that this was a devolved matter to Stormont and therefore could never be discussed in the Westminster Parliament. That convention led to enormous injustice in Northern Ireland but, happily, that is no longer the case under the devolved legislation.
	I have to say that sentiments of the kind expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, were the same as those that were responsible for the United Kingdom having to be taken before the European Court of Human Rights in the Dudgeon case. There is no doubt that the great majority of people in Northern Ireland and, I dare say, in the Republic—they, too, had to be taken to the European Court—believe that male adult consensual sexuality between homosexuals should be criminalised, as it had been in the middle of the 19th century. It took the European Court to change that in both the north and the south.
	We are now in the happy position of being the legislature not only for England, Wales and Scotland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. As law-makers, we are responsible for ensuring that the basic rights and freedoms of all British citizens and of everyone within the jurisdiction of the whole of the United Kingdom are guaranteed and that equal protection exists.
	As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said far better than I am doing, those fundamental rights of the individual apply to everyone on both sides of the Irish Sea, as well as north and south of the Scottish Border. Both islands are bound by the same standards—thank heavens—and it is now time that we enacted legislation that frees homosexual people in this whole country from an ancient form of discrimination.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him to make one matter very clear? It appeared to me that he linked my opposition to this Bill and to its application to Northern Ireland with religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Does he acknowledge that, during my entire public life and before I was involved politically, I was an arch opponent of religious discrimination? I would resent any implication otherwise.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am happy to make it absolutely clear that I was not making any such implication. I was saying that the argument for leaving everything to a devolved legislative body has great dangers, and for 50 years—long before the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was an active politician in Northern Ireland—arguments made on behalf of the majority caused the House of Commons to refuse to debate the issues at all.
	Of course, nothing whatever that I am saying has anything to do with the record of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, in opposing religious discrimination. But it was that history of deferring to an Assembly that was seen to represent the wishes of the majority, rather than the Westminster Parliament doing its job, that exacerbated the tragedy that became the divided communities of Northern Ireland. I say that as a great friend of Northern Ireland who enjoys everything about the place except the tragedy that befell it.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, concerned the number of government amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for clarifying the position on that. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the Government made it absolutely clear at Second Reading that there would have to be a substantial number of amendments.
	With regard to the noble Lord's amendment, the continuing suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly is unfortunate, and the Government continue to work with the parties in Northern Ireland to reach an agreement which will lead to the restoration of the Assembly. But we have said previously—I repeat the point—that good governance of Northern Ireland must continue. The people of Northern Ireland expect it and they are entitled to it during the period of suspension. We have made that commitment to the people of Northern Ireland and we shall not go back on that pledge now.
	When we discussed this matter in Grand Committee, I believe that I made it clear that the reasons for legislating in Northern Ireland relate to fairness and social justice. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made an extremely powerful and deeply moving speech about the human rights dimension in that respect.
	Government have a responsibility to lead. They also have a responsibility to challenge bigotry, discrimination and prejudice. I have to tell the House that I am very proud of what this Government have achieved by establishing a framework of equality and rights in this country. I hope that this House is equally proud of that achievement.
	While the Assembly remains suspended, legislation for Northern Ireland must be made by this Parliament. During the current period of suspension of the Assembly, this Parliament has passed a considerable body of new legislation applying in Northern Ireland, whether by Order in Council or by an Act of Parliament. On no occasion has it been put to the Government that commencement of legislation for Northern Ireland should be delayed until the Northern Ireland Assembly is restored. If it had, we would have resisted such a move, as we resist this attempt to delay the implementation of civil partnerships in Northern Ireland.
	The issue of delay has been raised in relation to this Bill only. If Members of this House really thought that the views of the elected Members of the Assembly were critical to the legitimacy of legislation applying to Northern Ireland, the issue would have been raised before when we discussed other pieces of legislation. If we were to accept that commencement of legislation for Northern Ireland passed by this Parliament should be subject to an indefinite delay, how would noble Lords explain to the people of Northern Ireland why they were being denied the benefit provided by recent legislation? I strongly oppose the amendments.

Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she will remember that she said both in Grand Committee and on Report that the Northern Ireland Assembly would have a power to repeal this legislation in so far as it affects Northern Ireland if it reconvened and if it so chose to do. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has just indicated that the Assembly would not have that power. Can the Minister say who is right?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat that when the Northern Ireland Assembly and executive are restored, they will be able to decide on transferred matters. There is a very long list, which I went into in Grand Committee, setting out those areas where powers have been transferred and those areas which rest clearly with the national government. As regards the European Convention on Human Rights, clearly, that is an issue which is not transferred.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I have listened carefully and with interest to what noble Lords have said. I am perhaps a little less convinced about what I have heard from the Government Front Bench. I shall simply make the point that good government is government that comes in response to the needs of the people. As to the way in which the Bill will be implemented in Northern Ireland without consultation with the Assembly, which I admit is now suspended, I do not believe that that is a good response to the people of Northern Ireland. However, I do not intend to waste the time of your Lordships' House and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, before my noble friend moves the government amendments, perhaps I may remind the House that this is Third Reading. The Companion states that arguments fully deployed at an earlier stage should not be repeated at length at Third Reading and also that the debate must be relevant to the amendment before the House. To put it in the vernacular, stick to the subject and to the point.

Clause 9 [Notice of proposed civil partnership and declaration]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 5, line 14, after "of" insert "proposed"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall try to obey that stricture. I hope that I explained earlier today why the Government chose to bring back only the few amendments which your Lordships see before us today. In the main, the amendments are minor and technical. They seek to correct errors or omissions or improve the existing drafting of those parts of the Bill which are unaffected by the decision made last Thursday.
	We have not felt it appropriate to table any amendments which would affect the substantive provisions on formation, ending or recognition of civil partnership or the substantive rights and responsibilities that would apply to civil partners. First, we have to remember that this is Third Reading—I am trying very hard to do that—and even more importantly, the difficulties we would now face in moving those other amendments. It has never been the Government's policy to apply these provisions to the wider group who can form a civil partnership as a result of last week's amendment.
	The Government are not able to give an adequate explanation of the policy underlying these further or additional changes or their legal effect and consistency with other provisions on the statute book or in the Bill. A further difficulty is that before introducing the Bill, the Government consulted widely about their plans for the new legal relationship and the legal rights and responsibilities which should attach to it. This fundamental change, without any additional consultation, deprives the Government of important background to policy making.
	Those considerations will also make it difficult for the Government to comment on other issues raised by the Bill and other amendments which have been tabled today. However, we shall attempt to describe the crucial issues in outline. In a few cases that has meant that we have not been able to table minor amendments because they are closely linked to the substantive amendment, which the Government have decided not to move, for the reasons that I have just explained.
	It is the Government's intention to overturn last week's amendment in another place and then to table the remaining government amendments to the Bill, which have had to be put on hold for that reason. It will be a decision for the other place whether it feels it wants to do that.
	The amendments in today's group are all very minor drafting changes, which do not involve any significant change in legal effect. I do not propose to describe those in detail. I wrote to noble Lords about the amendments when they were tabled on Report. I hope that that explanation will have prepared colleagues opposite to comment as appropriate. I beg to move.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I am in a particularly benign mood after the Minister announced that we are a grown-up House and the Government have withdrawn from their fit of pique as described by the right revered Prelate last week and tabled their own amendments. Therefore, on this occasion I shall not seek from the Minister a detailed explanation of those amendments because I appreciate that we have received some explanation in one of the mysterious, undated letters—one of which I believe should have been dated 17 May—that the Minister kindly sent to us on an earlier occasion.
	I wonder whether she can help me a little. I am rather intrigued about the grouping. As the Minister will remember, when the little local difficulties arose last week I moved what was then government amendment No. 13, which was in a group of seven other amendments. No Tellers were appointed by either side on that occasion and Amendment No. 13 was therefore lost. I understand that government Amendment No. 4 is the second from that group; which was Amendment No. 15 last week. Presumably some of the others belong in that group and some in other groups. I appreciate that those are all very minor amendments, but it is very difficult to work out exactly which ones are from Report stage as opposed to those that are now before us at Third Reading.
	I wonder whether it might be good practice for the Home Office in terms of getting their letters right—perhaps they would remember to date them on this occasion—if the Minister were to write to me and to other noble Lords setting out which amendments these are so that I can follow in slightly greater detail what it is the Government have put before us. I have no intention of opposing the amendments on this occasion.
	As I said, I am in a benign mood and therefore I shall not move my Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 25 and 26, which were originally government amendments. It might be that if the Government still wish to go ahead with those amendments, if they are valid, that they could move them. However, if they do not want to go ahead with them, I shall not move them and shall leave things in that position. Perhaps the Minister could give me the assurance of another brief letter from the Home Office.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord. If one scrutinises the letters that I have sent, one would find each and every one of these amendments outlined. That does of course mean that one has to read them.
	Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that I am most grateful that he is in a benign mood because I do not think that I should like to see his expressions if he were not in a benign mood. I hope I made clear at the first intervention that this was not the Government acting in pique; it was the Government accepting the consequence of the amendment passed last Thursday and behaving in a responsible and responsive manner. The one thing I have learned in this House is that the House does not wish to be unnecessarily wearied by long explanations about why every provision moved by the other side is arrant nonsense. So the Government behave, if I may respectfully say to the noble Lord, with calm and I believe with a degree of dignity.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Evidence to be produced]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 11, line 31, leave out "But"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Attempts at reconciliation of civil partners]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 19, line 27, after "applicant" insert "at the first available opportunity"

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we have returned to this amendment at every stage in the Bill. It was first raised as part of a clause stand part debate in Grand Committee, which seems a long time ago now.
	Amendment No. 6 is a simple amendment which would ensure that a solicitor acting for a client who seeks to dissolve his civil partnership would have to raise the possibility of reconciliation with him at the first available opportunity. The Bill as currently drafted does not state when a solicitor should raise such a prospect and provide him or her with details of persons qualified to help effect this. It seems common sense that the earlier the matter is raised the more chance there is of reconciliation.
	Both the Minister and I have expressed our concern to emphasise the seriousness of the proposed civil partnerships. Such partnerships are for the committed. I suggest that raising the possibility of reconciliation at the start of the prospect of a relationship breakdown would reflect well the Government's serious intent in the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the amendment serves to highlight why the extension of civil partnership to close family members is entirely inappropriate; not just in this one area of the dissolution process concerning reconciliation, but in every area of the dissolution process proposed by the Government. The amendment would place a duty on solicitors to discuss at the first opportunity the possibility of reconciliation between civil partners seeking dissolution of their civil partnership. Reconciliation would involve details of people who can provide relationship support, such as Relate, to be provided to civil partners.
	In order for attempts at reconciliation to be worth while, the relationship concerned must be a suitable one. Under the amended Bill, however, a civil partnership between family members offers a very different premise to that provided for by a same-sex civil partnership.
	Let me take one example. A person in a civil partnership with his brother would need to dissolve that civil partnership in order to marry. A person in this case would hardly need reconciliation with the brother he has formed a civil partnership with. His decision to dissolve the civil partnership is simple and uncomplicated: all he wants is to be able to marry his fiancée. I am sure noble Lords would not think it necessary to advise him on, and possibly dissuade him from, this course of action. I know that noble Lords are very supportive of those who wish to enter into marriage.
	Turning to the wider picture on dissolution, the amendment to extend the scope of the Bill to family members would result in a number of wholly undesirable consequences; consequences that I am sure noble Lords opposite would not wish to see.
	The procedure that the Government set out for the dissolution of a same-sex civil partnership is based on the court being satisfied that one of the following facts has occurred: unreasonable behaviour or desertion and separation for periods of either two or five years. We do not, however, see the package of provisions relating to dissolution as being remotely appropriate to the reality of family members' lives.
	Perhaps I may illustrate again some of the absurd consequences that may follow if the current dissolution provisions were applied to family members who want to dissolve a civil partnership. A daughter, for instance, wishing to marry, but having formed a civil partnership with her mother, would be unable to marry until the civil partnership was dissolved in a formal court-based procedure. That could take over a year to complete.
	Alternatively, the daughter may well decide not to marry at all if the financial benefits associated with her civil partner status were greater than if she were to marry. Clearly, the Government would strongly resist encouraging situations where people decline to marry for fear of losing out financially; for fear of leaving their close relatives in a worse financial position; and/or for fear of creating tensions within their wider family. I would hope that noble Lords agree with me on that.
	We might also have the situation of a daughter, who had formed a civil partnership with her father which had been subsequently dissolved, being liable not only for maintenance payments to her father, but also for any of her dependant brothers and sisters who had been treated as children of the family. As I said last Thursday, this could turn the clock back to the 1930s when daughters were held financially responsible for their father and others in the household, leading to their lives being restricted in a totally unacceptable way.
	Of course such applications for compulsory maintenance between family members would lead to great ill feeling between the applicants if the arrangements for them to live together broke down. Last week's successful amendment would also encourage property disputes between family members where only two have become civil partners. Civil partners have increased rights to apply to the court in respect of property disputes, as opposed to relatives who live together. Under the current Bill an elderly mother could be forced to sell her house, as was said earlier.
	The examples go on and on. We are faced with a situation where this formerly reasonable court-based dissolution process, which sought to support same-sex civil partnerships, has now changed to the extent that it actively undermines relationships between family members; it undermines the integrity of the wider family unit; and it undermines the entirely acceptable role of the state in seeking to support families as the most valuable unit for social cohesion. Nor are these effects easily remediable as some noble Lords might suggest. They form both the foundations and the structure of the dissolution process.
	So I understand why the noble Baroness wished to move the amendment in relation to same-sex partners. However, when one seeks to use the reconciliation model to the wider group, it becomes clear that some very difficult decisions would have to be made by family members which are inherently incompatible with the overall scheme we have for dissolution.
	However, when all that has been said, I wish to put on record that the Government have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment in respect of the Bill as originally presented. Clearly, it would be important that attempts at reconciliation should be started as soon as possible. The Government would not, however, wish to be too prescriptive about how solicitors discharge their responsibilities in connection with reconciliation.
	The Law Society's protocol for family proceedings requires solicitors to ensure that their clients consider the possibility of reconciliation and are made aware of the relationship support facilities available locally at appropriate stages in divorce proceedings. My noble friend Lord Filkin wrote to the noble Baroness regarding the current provision of relationship support in divorce proceedings. It is intended that corresponding duties will be placed on solicitors in civil partnership proceedings. The responsibility on solicitors to consider the possibility of reconciliation is continuous and remains throughout the proceedings. The Government believe that solicitors should be allowed to use their discretion on how to raise this possibility with their clients. This amendment has helpfully served to flag up the difficulty that we all face when discussing the Bill in its current state.
	I hope that, on the basis of the consequences that I have outlined, the noble Baroness will accept the explanation that the Government have given of their original intent on reconciliation for same-sex civil partners, and that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, that was a lengthy response, for which I am extremely grateful. Even though we have been exhorted not to take too much time at this stage, given the circumstances under which we are working at the moment, I am extremely grateful for any extra help that the Minister feels that she can give us by way of explanation. Obviously, things have changed, and one must listen. I have listened carefully to the Minister.
	At one stage I thought, "What if two homosexuals had entered into a civil partnership and one of them had decided to get married. Surely the civil partnership would break down then, and they, too, would then be looking at that?" I can see that there is a lot to discuss. I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
	Clause 83 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 38, line 27, after "has" insert—
	"(a) freely agreed to enter a civil partnership, and
	(b)"

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which are consequential. The amendments would ensure that parties to a civil partnership must clearly agree to enter the partnership. I hope that I will be taken to have complied adequately with the strictures of the Companion when I say that the reasons for the amendment were outlined on Report, as reported at col. 1442 of Hansard. Noble Lords present are probably well aware that events have conspired to render it impossible for the Minister to reply to any such amendments either in Committee or on Report. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I was unable to reply to these amendments in Committee because they were tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who did not turn up to move them.
	From the outset, the Scottish Executive has strongly supported the aims of the Civil Partnership Bill in seeking to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships. On that basis, the Scottish Executive, like the rest of the UK, carried out public consultation. The results were positive: 86 per cent of respondents agreed with the proposal to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples in Scotland and 74 per cent agreed with the proposed use of a Sewel Motion.
	As with the UK Government, the Scottish Executive does not support the new definition of civil partnership; it, too, considers that it will make the Bill unworkable. Unless the amendments are reversed, the Scottish provisions in the Civil Partnership Bill will be placed beyond the scope of a Sewel Motion and the Scottish Executive will have to consider whether it needs to gain fresh authority.
	As with other parts of the Bill, the government amendments to the Scottish provisions have not been laid, as they are consequential on the creation of a form of legal recognition for same-sex couples and do not reflect the current definition of civil partnership. As I have said before, the parts of the Bill that relate specifically to Scotland achieve the same effects as exist elsewhere in the Bill but have been drafted to reflect the special characteristics of Scottish law.
	I shall now respond to the amendments that the noble Duke has moved. Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are to Clauses 83, 84 and 90 respectively. These clauses have been modelled on the procedures that exist for civil marriage, which we consider appropriate for such a long-term relationship. We do not consider that that should automatically hold true for family members wishing to form a civil partnership. I ask the noble Duke to withdraw the amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the situation of the Scottish Executive. We are at an interesting stage in that the Bill does not have to be fully Sewel-ed until it has left this House and been taken on in another place, so perhaps we have a little more liberty than being totally constrained by the Sewel Motion passed in the first instance. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 84 [Eligibility]:
	[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
	Clause 90 [Objections to registration]:
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
	Clause 111 [Civil partners: competency of interdict]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 56, line 43, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) It shall be competent for the Court of Session or the Sheriff to entertain an application by one civil partner in a civil partnership for a relevant interdict."

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, this is another amendment that I moved on Report. It relates to the competence of the Court of Session. The amendment reworks Clause 111 to make it a positive statement of competency for interdict proceedings in the Court of Session or sheriff court. Noble Lords will remember that the argument was about the current employment of a double negative and the Scottish Law Society's view that the wording in my amendment clarifies the position. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 applies to Clause 111, which is modelled on an equivalent provision in the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 that exists for spouses. Before the 1981 Act, it was thought arguable at common law that an interdict could not be obtained by one person against another living in the same house—an interdict in Scottish law is the same as an injunction in our law. Their option would have been to remove themselves from that house.
	The purpose of Section 14 of the 1981 Act, which Clause 111 replicates, is to remove that doubt and to declare that it is not incompetent to grant an interdict between parties living together. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Duke's dislike of the use of a double negative, the clause has been drafted to mirror the equivalent provision in the 1981 Act. The noble Duke's amendment will not change the meaning of the clause, and it is arguable whether it clarifies the purpose. I hope that the noble Duke will be able to withdraw his amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it is an interesting reply. It presupposes that we do not wish at any point to see any improvement to a Bill passed previously, even if we can see that there is a better approach. The fact that the noble Lord has taken the time to explain how it is arrived at will be helpful to those who must look at the legislation in the future. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 115 [Dissolution]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 60, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, with which Amendment No. 13 is grouped. The aim of the amendments is to tie up what we are considering in this House with the current state of the law in Scotland.
	Amendment No. 13 deletes the provision for dissolution on the basis of desertion. As noble Lords will be aware, the Scottish Law Commission, in its Report on Reform of the Ground for Divorce in 1989, recommended that desertion as a basis for establishing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be abolished. Accordingly, it seems appropriate that this thinking is reflected in the law on civil partnership. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 seek to make changes to the Civil Partnership Bill to pre-empt changes to marriage law in Scotland that may occur as a result of a Family Law Bill in Scotland. The changes proposed would mean that dissolution with consent could take place within one year and without consent after two years.
	These amendments are inappropriate. There is no date as yet for the Family Law Bill. If these amendments were accepted and the Family Law Bill did not proceed, or proceeded with significant changes, it would give rise to differing provisions for ending a legal relationship depending on sexual orientation. That goes against the policy intention of the Civil Partnership Bill as we planned it. As I have said on a number of occasions, the policy intention is that civil partnership is modelled on provisions for marriage. The Scottish Executive's proposals to reform family law have just been consulted on; in fact, the consultation period closed last Monday. If and when the Family Law Bill is passed, any changes to provisions for spouses will be reflected in the Civil Partnership Bill. In this way, we ensure parity between spouses and civil partners. I hope that the noble Duke will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, and I am conscious that we were looking at the intention of the Scottish Parliament if the Family Law Bill were passed. I am interested to hear him say that if the Family Law Bill does pass, matters will be brought into line. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be clauses in the Family Law Bill in Scotland that will be reckoned to amend the Civil Partnership Bill? That seems to be a funny way around for things to happen.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, although this is Third Reading, the position that I took was that as there is no date for the Family Law Bill—I did not actually say this—it would be inappropriate for me to discuss any aspect of that Bill or its relationship to any other Act.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister, although he has not clarified the point. Perhaps it is not possible to clarify it at the moment. I was never sure that it was possible for the Scottish Parliament to include legislation that would affect a UK Bill and bring this Bill into line with the Scottish legislation. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
	Clause 157 [Powers to make orders and effect of orders]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 76, line 33, leave out from "court"" to end of line 35 and insert "has the meaning given by section 183."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 165 [Supplemental provisions as to facts raising presumption of breakdown]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 80, line 21, after "period" insert "during"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 179 [Supplementary provisions as to declarations]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 87, line 18, leave out "and section 148"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 185 [Transfer of proceedings]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 90, line 24, leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 220 [Meaning of "the court"]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 106, line 3, leave out from "court"" to end of line 5 and insert "has the meaning given by section 183."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 222 [Proceedings for presumption of death order]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22:
	Page 106, line 44, leave out "court" and insert "High Court"
	Page 107, line 6, leave out "court" and insert "High Court"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 243 [Civil partners to have unlimited insurable interest in each other]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 118, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Before Clause 244, insert the following new clause—
	"CIVIL PARTNERS: TREATMENT FOR TAX PURPOSES
	For tax purposes civil partners shall be treated as in the Finance Act 2004."

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I want to make two points; one specific point and one general point. I have tried on two previous occasions to refer to the press release issued by the Inland Revenue ahead of this Bill, saying that the Civil Partnership Bill is social policy legislation, so any tax consequences would be dealt with in the "first available Finance Bill". It seems absolutely clear that the first available Finance Bill is the one now going through the House of Commons, but as I far as I can see no tax consequences of this Bill appear in that Finance Bill, at any rate as far as government amendments are concerned. Was the press release simply wrong, or will some clauses appear in the Finance Bill that will eventually become the Finance Act 2004? Repeated attempts to get an answer to that have totally failed. I should like to have an answer.
	My second point is more general. We have discussed at some length the proceedings of last week and the consequences of them. If one thing is absolutely clear, it is the degree of sympathy felt in your Lordships' House for carers and others who were not originally covered by this Bill. The provisions that we have now attempt to do so, but the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has pointed out some of the problems that might arise if the Bill were to remain in its present state. None the less, given the degree of sympathy that has been expressed, particularly with regard to inheritance tax, and the feeling that in removing one set of injustices experienced until now by those who were covered by the Bill as originally drafted, we have brought into sharp focus the problems suffered by others. It might happen that they are sharing accommodation, one dies, and the other finds that he can no longer occupy it because of the effect of inheritance tax.
	My understanding is that an amendment covering this point in the Finance Bill has been, or is about to be, tabled in the other place. I hope very much that the Government could help these people as far as concerns inheritance tax. It would after all, except in very exceptional circumstances, merely be a question of cash flow for the Revenue. On the other hand, it would seek to treat a group of people covered as they were by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain's amendment last week in a way that does not create some of the problems to which the Government have rightly drawn attention. I hope therefore that the Government will fulfil their claim in the press release that they will legislate in the Finance Bill, and that they will take into account not only those originally covered by the Bill, but those who are now having it extended to them, though not necessarily with the requirement to form a civil partnership in order to get that advantage. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it is not appropriate to insert provisions relating to taxation into a Bill in your Lordships' House, since taxation is entirely a matter for the other place. However, pensions provision is a different matter.
	What the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said reflects a fundamental defect in the view taken on this Bill by speakers on the Opposition Benches. I refrain from referring to "the Opposition", since they claim to have had a free vote; no doubt they had. The point at issue is that this Bill was never, as we understand it, in its original concept intended to be a tax Bill. It was intended to grant recognition to a legal relationship between partners of the same sex. The tax issues were consequences of that object; they were not the object in themselves. Those Conservatives have here made taxation the primary object of the Bill. Although we too have considerable sympathy for the problems raised, we wish to make it clear that we do not think that this is the right Bill in which to raise these issues. That is a matter for the other place in a Finance Bill.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right, as so often: it is not a tax Bill. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, also touched, in a way, on the ground of a subsequent amendment—Amendment No. 40, I think—which deals with the same issues.
	The first point that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised was whether the unamended Bill would be incorporated into the first available Finance Bill. As the Finance Bill is currently going through the House of Commons, he asked about the Government's intention. There are two "ifs" relating to that. First, the Bill as unamended must go through; and, secondly, the amendment that your Lordships chose to pass last week must be overturned. In either circumstance, we could not incorporate a version of civil partnership before the other place had made a decision on what it embraced. That must be determined before anything could be incorporated in a Finance Act. The Finance Bill makes no mention of civil partners and cannot do so until the Civil Partnership Bill passes.
	I am sure that the noble Lord is using the amendment as a probing amendment, even at this late stage, so given the high degree of respect and courtesy with which we have always sought to exchange with each another, it may be helpful if I put the Government's intentions on record. The fiscal consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill are crystal clear. We have already announced that, for all tax purposes, same-sex civil partners will be treated in the same way as married couples, if the Bill proceeds in its original form, without the extension to the categories of civil partners made last week by the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
	The Government went further and made it clear that all tax consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill, as it applied to same-sex couples, would be addressed and debated at the appropriate time in the first available Finance Bill. That is still the case if the Bill completes the legislative process with the category of civil partners defined only as same-sex couples. We expect that, if the Bill that we are debating is passed and concerns same-sex couples only, it will come into force about a year after Royal Assent. There will be plenty of time for another Finance Bill, to include provisions dealing with the tax consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill. If the Bill proceeds in its current form, the tax matters will be dealt with in the normal Budget process.
	I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is saying that the press release was wrong. However, given the importance of press releases—with the question of abolishing the Lord Chancellor, for example—one must be sensitive about them. What was in the press release is incorrect: the matter will not be dealt with in the next available Finance Bill.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is my fault that I do not have the particular press release to hand. I did not know that the noble Lord was going to refer to it.
	I do not see how any Bill can pre-judge another Bill that has not yet concluded its proceedings. In so far as the press release said "the next available", it could only have meant the next available Finance Bill after this Bill had terminated its parliamentary progress. Therefore, it seems to me that, as described, the Inland Revenue's press release was exactly correct.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am surprised to hear that the noble Baroness was unaware that I would refer to it. I referred to it in Committee and on Report. However, I think that, on those occasions, she was not going to reply to the particular debate. That may be why.
	The press release was clear. It says that any tax consequences will be dealt with in the first available Finance Bill. They are not being dealt with in the first available Finance Bill.
	To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I must say that I have not at any stage said that the primary purpose of the Bill was taxation. Tax is an important aspect of it, but I have accepted all along that the primary purpose is the one that was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in his Bill. That is undoubtedly the main purpose, but the fact is that there are important tax consequences.
	The point that I sought to make was that, whatever one does about the original scope of the Bill, the House has expressed enormous sympathy for those covered by the amendment carried last week. I hope that the Government will take into account the strength of feeling expressed in your Lordships' House on that issue, when they consider the financial consequences in the present Finance Bill. My understanding is that an amendment has been tabled, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to it.
	We cannot take the matter further at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 245 [Power to amend enactments relating to pensions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
	Clause 252 [Extent]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 31:
	Page 124, line 11, leave out "and 14" and insert "to 20"
	Page 124, line 15, at end insert—
	"(c) sections 220 to 224 extend to Northern Ireland only."
	Page 124, line 20, at end insert—
	"( ) Section 242 extends to Northern Ireland only."
	Page 124, line 22, leave out "or repeal" and insert ", repeal or revocation"
	Page 124, line 23, leave out "or repeal" and insert ", repeal or revocation"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 253 [Commencement]:
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
	Schedule 10 [Family homes and domestic violence]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 223, line 9, after ""(j)" insert "Schedules 6 to 8 to"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 16 [Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
	Page 243, line 42, at end insert—
	"to the satisfaction of the court, such periodical payments for such term as may be specified;
	(f) an order that one of the civil partners must pay such lump sum as may be specified—
	(i) to such person as may be specified for the benefit of a child of the family, or
	(ii) to a child of the family."
	Page 273, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) In this Schedule "the court" has the meaning given by section 183."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 17 [Financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.: Northern Ireland]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 39:
	Page 283, line 14, leave out "(5)(a)(i)" and insert "(5)(a)"
	Page 283, line 16, leave out "(5)(a)(i)" and insert "(5)(a)"
	Page 291, line 32, leave out from "apply" to end of line 34 and insert "for the purposes of this Schedule as they apply for the purposes of that Order."
	Page 291, line 44, at end insert—
	"( ) In any provision of this Schedule "the court" (except where the context otherwise requires) means a court of summary jurisdiction which by virtue of this Schedule or of rules of court has jurisdiction for the purposes of that provision."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 24 [Social security, child support and tax credits]:

Baroness Wilcox: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 344, line 9, at end insert—
	"PART 14
	AMENDMENT OF THE INHERITANCE TAX ACT 1984 (C. 51)
	In section 18(1), (2) and (3) for "spouse" substitute "spouse or registered civil partner"."

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I understand that my colleague has spoken about tax, and I can see how the Minister might think that that overrides the amendment that I have tabled. However, my amendment has a particular aspect on which I would be grateful for the Minister's response. As the Government have been most helpful in their responses today, I hope that the Minister will not mind my using another couple of moments of her time.
	I heard the response that the matter would be dealt with in the next Finance Bill, but, as the Minister knows, the Bill started in this House, and we will have to pass it in this House on the promise of things to come. I have had a lot of post from people—including those covered by the new amendment—who are obviously confused and excited about the idea that they will not have to suffer the problems of inheritance tax any more, if they can form a civil partnership.
	I do not want the Government to give me another lecture about last Thursday's amendment or the Minister to tell me that the matter will be dealt with in the next available Finance Bill—I understand that; she articulated it most clearly—but I must ask whether this House will be able to know the Government's intention in this area. One of the benefits that the Marriage Act brings to all other married couples is that, if two people live together under the contract called marriage—it will be called a civil contract, when, as I hope, the Bill goes through—they do not have to suffer the misery of moving out of their home because of its value for inheritance tax reasons. Can the Minister give this House some feeling of the Government's intention in that area? I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not think that I can take the House much further than my response to the previous amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The noble Baroness said that she had had a large postbag from people in the new groups covered by the amendment moved last week who were confused and excited—

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I do not want to confuse the Minister. I was trying to capture the fact that my amendment had originally dealt with the Bill, as intended. Now, of course, I too must include the other people. Since the beginning of the Bill, however, my main postbag has, of course, come from homosexual and lesbian couples. Obviously, they were excited by the Bill. It follows the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, which I supported, just as I support this one. My post came from people who originally saw themselves as the main beneficiaries of the new civil contract.
	I do not want the noble Baroness to think that my postbag has come from people, in a moment of excitement, following the amendment on Thursday. I have received a heavy postbag and I know that other Members of this House—certainly on my Front Bench—have too. I am very sorry if the Minister has not received any letters of a similar nature from people who express how pleased they are, particularly as regards inheritance tax.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not think that the last remark was relevant. My ministerial postbag is my ministerial postbag. I am concerned to make the point that I would be very anxious if groups over and beyond those under the original shaping and umbrella of the Bill now believe, following last week—which is what the noble Baroness said—that there are new possibilities of adjustments to inheritance tax rules and so forth as a result of the amendment. If the noble Baroness—

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, perhaps I may interject once more. The noble Baroness is really holding on to the point of the "new people". I am obviously not being very clear, for which I apologise to the House. The postbag to which I am referring, right now as I stand here, is that which I received before last Thursday. Will the Minister address her comments to that postbag, which I received from those people who, at that time, were being referred to in this Bill? My question still stands: can the Government tell us their intention in that area?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, my response to that point, as opposed to the other point raised by the noble Baroness, is exactly the same. This amendment seeks to alter provisions of the Inheritance Tax Act relating to transfers of value so that civil partners will enjoy the same inheritance tax relief as enjoyed by a married couple.
	The scope of the Bill is now entirely different from that which was originally envisaged as a result of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. The categories of civil partners presently extend to those within the specified degrees of family relationship who meet the conditions imposed by the amendment. If the amendment is retained throughout the legislative process, in order to deal with and reflect those changes to the scope of the Bill, the Government will be required to undergo a considerable review of the tax consequences which follow from those changes. That will be dealt with as part of the normal budget process.
	In so far as the noble Baroness seeks clarification, I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. When the Civil Partnership Bill was published on 30 March, the Government announced that for tax purposes same-sex couples who form a civil partnership would be treated the same as married couples for inheritance tax and other related purposes.
	The Government's intentions regarding the fiscal consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill as presented to this House on 30 March 2004 were, in my view, crystal clear. The Government had already announced that for all tax purposes, including inheritance tax, same-sex civil partners were to be treated the same as married couples. Nothing could be clearer than that. The Government had also gone further and clarified that all tax consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill would be addressed and debated at the appropriate time, once the Bill had become, or should it become, an Act, in the first available finance Bill following the completion of parliamentary scrutiny.
	However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, if the Bill remains in its present form, tax changes will be considered as part of the normal budget process. I would urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that answer. It has been extremely helpful. I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 25 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to pensions]:

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 344, line 12, leave out paragraph 1.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, it would be helpful to discuss Amendment No. 41 with Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44, although they cover a most extraordinary range of issues ranging from the Fire Services Act 1947, the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 and the Theatres Trust Act 1976.
	I should like to make a couple of general points. The gap between the provisions of public sector pensions, which are frequently of a final salary type—sometimes of a non-contributory final salary type—and private sector pensions, as a result of various changes that we have seen since 1997, is getting wider. But in one respect at least, the public sector seems to be lagging behind the private sector; namely, the extent to which trustees are given discretion to make provision not simply for spouses but, very often, to enable the beneficiary in the pension scheme to decide to whom the survivor's pension should go in due course.
	These clauses seem to perpetuate the situation whereby the survivor's pension is restricted to a surviving spouse or a surviving civil partner. Would it not be better to say that the trustees should have discretion in each of those cases? That could include surviving civil partners, as well as any other individual. That best practice in many private schemes would enable the beneficiary to state who ought to receive the survivor's pension when he or she dies.
	Why the Theatres Trust Act is singled out for that statement, I am not clear. Nor am I clear about why the Fire Services Act should be singled out. On what basis have four Acts been singled out for apparently special, explicit treatment in the Bill rather than dealt with in the generality? I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall try to answer the noble Lord's questions. Following the amendment laid by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, which widened the scope of the Bill to include close family members, I have already explained why the Government would not wish to extend survivor benefits to this group of people. I shall not go over those arguments yet again. In response to this seemingly probing amendment, even at this late stage, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I shall seek to indicate the original intention of the Government in including what is now Schedule 25, which was originally Schedule 24, in the Bill.
	Schedule 25 is the first of two sets of provisions that were intended to amend existing pensions' legislation to make provisions for surviving civil partners. Schedule 26 amends enactments relating to the Armed Forces.
	The rules of most public service schemes are set out in secondary legislation, which can be amended using the broad scheme-making powers that already exist in the primary legislation that sets the scheme up. For example, the Superannuation Act 1972 sets up the PCSPS, local government, NHS and teachers' schemes. Other public service pension schemes exist that do not have such broad scheme-making powers set out in primary legislation which set the schemes up and which require complex amendments. They do not need to be amended in the Bill as they will be amended using the power in Clause 245—given all the qualifications that we have to keep making in respect of your Lordships' decision—of the Civil Partnership Bill.
	However, Schedule 25 was intended to deal with four Acts that require very simple amendments in primary legislation which are most effectively made in the Bill rather than in regulations. Schedule 25 amends the Fire Services Act 1947, the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 and the Theatres Trust Act 1976.
	The noble Lord asked in particular about the Theatres Trust Act 1976. The Theatres Trust does not currently employ any staff. A separate non-statutory charitable trust currently employs staff who assist the trustees of the Theatres Trust in carrying out their statutory functions. However, should the Theatres Trust itself employ staff in future, which cannot be ruled out, as a result of the Civil Partnership Bill, the amended Act would extend the power of the trustees in relation to providing pensions and gratuities to their employees to cover civil partners and clarify that the surviving spouses of both male and female employees are also covered by the same power. It is a peculiarity which is worth putting on the record.
	These provisions were intended to enable payments to be made to surviving civil partners and their dependants as well as to surviving spouses. As the House is well aware, the Government are firmly against extending such rights to family members under the amended Bill, and the Government will seek to overturn the amendment to extend the scope of the Bill in another place.
	I hope that my explanation is useful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, but on the basis of the information I have given him and in the context in which we are currently operating, I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, decides what to do about his amendment, may I ask for clarification of one point? Given what the Minister has said, are there adequate powers in the Bill to be able to amend the state pension scheme if the Government were to come to the view—which is not their present view—that it would provide a way of eliminating unfair discrimination? I refer, for example, to backdating to 1988 same-sex couples belonging to schemes in accordance with a view that the Government might then take about the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. I am not asking whether they agree with the substance, but do the provisions give the power to do that without the need to amend the Bill itself? I hope that I have made my question clear; I hope that I have.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when he refers to state pensions, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is referring to the single reference scheme test in defined benefit schemes and/or the protected rights in defined contribution schemes, or whether he is genuinely referring to state pensions. The issue does not arise in that way, as no doubt his noble friend Lady Barker will explain to him following our previous discussions. So I am not sure to which pension provision the noble Lord is referring.
	I am not sure whether this is the appropriate forum in which to discuss the issue. However, I shall be perfectly happy to write to the noble Lord, which may be more appropriate given that we are at Third Reading. I could happily engage in a discussion at length about retrospectivity and so forth, and I acknowledge the fact that the noble Lord has not kept his amendment on the Marshalled List. It is my understanding that there are powers by regulation should this subject wish to be revisited by a Secretary of State at any future date. But I do not say that that would be easy, simple or straightforward. That is my understanding. Once more, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she really has not taken the point I was seeking to make. These clauses enable trustees operating under the different schemes to extend their powers for surviving pensions to civil partners. I understood the noble Baroness to say that it would not be appropriate to extend them to those covered by the amendment carried last week. But what I have suggested would solve both problems at once.
	In many private sector schemes, the question of who should receive the surviving partner pension or the survivor's pension is given to the trustees who, not infrequently, allow the person concerned not only to leave the pension to their spouse—or, as in this case, to their civil partner—but simply to leave it to someone whom they nominate. Is it not rather retrograde to perpetuate the old situation in these cases, which are not really in line with best practice in the private sector? Should the Bill not simply provide that the trustees may have discretion to allocate the survivor pension to someone nominated by the member? That would solve both problems at the same time.
	I am sorry. I thought that this would be the best way of proceeding. I hope that the noble Baroness will respond.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am trying to follow the conventions of the House at Third Reading. I have already trespassed well beyond them in taking an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I am in the hands of the House, but this is not the Committee stage of the Bill.
	I do not want to be unhelpful to the noble Lord because I have every respect for him. All I would suggest is that we shall shortly be considering the Pensions Bill when it comes before the Grand Committee. This is not the Bill to discuss alteration of the basic terms or construction within which trustees handle the headspace in public sector pensions. However, there is certainly a point to argue on that score.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I sought to intervene before the noble Baroness sat down and I had hoped that I was very much in order in doing so, even at Third Reading. She had not taken the point I sought to make. The Government are extending the power of trustees, so are not trustees better served simply by having the discretion to give the survivor pension to someone who the beneficiary nominates? If the noble Baroness would like to write to me about it, fair enough. It is an important point which I hope will be put right when the Bill goes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 not moved.]
	Schedule 28 [Consequential amendments: Scotland]:

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Page 374, line 2, at end insert—
	"In section 16(4) (petitions for recall of sequestration), for "section 41(1)(b)" substitute "sections 41(1)(b) and 41A(1)(b)"."

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I am sure that it is a relief to many that we have reached the last group of amendments.
	These amendments concern the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. In moving Amendment No. 45, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 46 to 49. I spoke to amendments similar to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 on Report at col. 1457. The arguments may be slightly different on Amendment No. 47. Its effect would be to insert a reference to a new paragraph (aa) into Section 42(d) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. The reason for this is that paragraph 31(2) of Schedule 28 to the Bill inserts a new Section 40(2)(aa) into the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. As a result, Section 40(2)(d) of the 1985 Act requires amendment to refer to new paragraph (aa).
	Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 were also spoken to on Report. No doubt the arguments were clear enough at the time. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 have been drafted on the basis that civil partners should be treated in the same way as spouses. It does not automatically hold true that family members who have formed a civil partnership should be treated in the same way as spouses for the purposes of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.
	Although the amendments tabled by the noble Duke are very helpful, I am sure he will understand when I say that the Scottish Executive would wish to lay its own amendments to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 which, in its view, will be very comprehensive.
	I hope that, in the light of my explanation, the noble Duke will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, once again I am most grateful to the Minister for a very interesting reply. We can see how the interplay of legislation between the devolved administrations and the Government is working out. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will address the matter clearly if it is not something that we feel able to address here at this time.
	I thank the Minister for his response. While I cannot speak for the House as a whole, for myself I have found it both entertaining and useful. I am only sorry that he was unable to give it at an earlier stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]
	An amendment (privilege) made.
	Read a third time.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long. I wish, first, to express the view—which will not come as a shock to Ministers and others—that the Bill as drafted originally was, in my view, outrageously discriminatory. It has been so improved by the amendments carried against the Government last week that I cannot find it in my heart to oppose the Bill in its present form.
	Secondly—I hope it will not be thought that I am straying too far out of order—I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. In the heated nature of the debate last week, I believe that I was dismissive of something the noble Lord said to the point of rudeness. I do not want him to think that I was that dismissive; we were all trying to move on quite quickly and in a rather heated manner. I apologise to him for being so rude.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord is very generous. I would never ever suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is rude or dismissive, but he is perhaps sometimes a trifle sarcastic.
	What happened to the Bill last Thursday has harmed the well-earned reputation of the House in exercising its crucial legislative powers. It has meant that we have not been able to debate the Bill's provisions as we had hoped. For example, I had intended to raise the issue of unjustifiable discrimination against same-sex couples in existing state and private pension schemes as regards survivors' benefits, especially in the light of a recent landmark decision in the House of Lords in the case of Mendoza.
	I had to withdraw that amendment and the issue will now have to be raised and entirely decided in another place—no doubt taking into account, I hope, any forthcoming report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	I hope and believe that the fate of the Bill will not be like that of J.W. Turner's crippled "The Fighting Temeraire", the great vessel that was towed away and broken up. We are confident that the Bill will be repaired in the other place. When it comes back to this House, we shall see whether the Official Opposition will support this much needed legislation.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for what he has said. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for the generosity of his admission as to what happened on Thursday. However, I say to the noble Lord that to describe the Bill as having been drafted in an outrageous and discriminatory way is a travesty. For some, the Bill was a thing of beauty and a joy for ever.
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Royal Assent

Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Gender Recognition Act,
	Higher Education Act,
	Mersey Tunnels Act,
	Ipswich Market Act.

Age-Related Payments Bill

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Since coming to office in 1997, we have put pensions and pensioners at the centre of our commitment to reform and modernise the welfare state. Security for today's pensioners is being achieved through a system of universal and targeted help. The result of all this help means that in 2004–05 the poorest third of pensioner households will be on average £1,750 better off per year in real terms—an extra £33 per week—compared with the 1997 system.
	This simple Bill builds on those achievements. It puts in place the Chancellor's Budget promise to pay all eligible households with someone aged over 70 an extra £100 this year. This payment is a response to the concerns expressed by some of our oldest citizens who over recent years have been coping with high increases in household bills, particularly council tax bills, while living on fixed retirement incomes.
	We are targeting older pensioners because we know that older people have, on average, lower incomes. Pensioner couples where the man is over 70 have an average net income of almost £50 a week less than pensioner couples headed by someone under 70. Even those pensioners with private pension provision see their average income reduce the older they are. For example, a single pensioner under 70 with private pension provision will receive an average of £104 a week, whereas a single pensioner over 70 will, on average, receive £83 a week.
	In addition, older people are much less likely to have income from earnings. Around 14 per cent of pensioners aged under 70 have income from earnings; this reduces to less than 2 per cent of pensioners over 70.
	Inevitably, the older people are the more likely they are to live alone, managing the full cost of running their household on a single retirement income. Some 19.2 per cent of women aged 60 to 64 live alone compared to 39.9 per cent of women aged 70 to 74 and more than 70 per cent of women aged over 80.
	We anticipate that around 5 million pensioner households will benefit from this payment at a cost of around £500 million. In order to guarantee that these large numbers of payments are paid quickly and reliably they will be made using the tried and tested winter fuel payment system. We will keep the process simple and transparent by mirroring the winter fuel payment rules as closely as possible. By doing this we will keep administrative costs to a minimum and ensure that the vast majority of eligible people will receive a payment automatically, without needing to make a claim, before the end of the year.
	For those very few eligible people who do not receive a winter fuel payment and who will not therefore receive an automatic payment, we have put in place a very simple claims process. We will include details of the payment and how to claim it with the planned winter fuel payment publicity campaign.
	The Bill also includes a regulation-making power. This will mean that, if circumstances warrant it, future payments may be made to people over the age of 60 or a subset of that group. Any regulations made using this power will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and so be subject to parliamentary debate in both Houses, as well as scrutiny by the Social Security Advisory Committee. We are taking this power so that we will be able to respond quickly to any future need without having to resort to further primary legislation in this way.
	The Bill responds to a specific need by providing a tax-free one-off payment to our eldest citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, when I first entered your Lordships' House I was intrigued by the procedure whereby ahead of the Committee stage the Long Title was deferred. That is very different from the situation in the House of Commons where the Long Title tends to be very inhibiting. I understand that because this is a money Bill we will not have a Committee stage and that therefore that interesting Motion will not be made.
	However, I have wondered what one could select as a better Long Title for the Bill than the one it has at present. I thought perhaps the "Pre-election Bribe Bill", or something like that, would be appropriate; or alternatively the "Pre-election Bribe (Failed) Bill", as quite clearly the electorate did not respond to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's peroration in his Budget Speech which gave this extraordinary hand-out to pensioners.
	Of course, all pensioners—including myself—will be grateful up to a point, but it is wholly inconsistent with his basic policy. It is more consistent with that of my own party, which believes that it is best to go for increasing the basic state pension rather than the mass of means-tested benefits, tax credits and so on which the Chancellor has introduced since 1997. This is not consistent with the policy that he has adopted. It makes a straight hand-out to people regardless of the rest of the social security system. It is a curious situation.
	The Chancellor has never moved away from a quick increase of this kind, which he hopes will be politically successful however inconsistent it may be with his own policy of targeting. I did not quite catch the noble Baroness's opening remark—I believe she referred to "universal and targeted help", although I am not quite clear how this could be so described—but certainly in a number of respects the Bill appears to be neither targeted nor universal.
	I should declare an interest since I will qualify for this payment. The noble Baroness kindly sent me a long list of those who will qualify, and under what circumstances. It is actually pretty complicated, because even with a flat-rate approach, the Chancellor manages to complicate matters. Although people over 70 will benefit, people between 65 and 69 will not. We have had no explanation about why people up to the age of 69 do not qualify and those over 70 do.
	The justification for this handout—I think that that is the right expression—is that people are suffering from a substantial increase in council tax and this measure will ameliorate their problem. The noble Baroness may correct me if I am wrong, but the Chancellor appears not to realise initially that this measure will need primary legislation. It is being tagged on to the Christmas bonus. However, pensioners will have to pay the higher council tax now and will not get the payment made under the Bill until Christmas, so they will have a cash flow problem.
	The payment is completely unrelated to the tax and benefit system. It rather disregards the appalling take-up rate for council tax benefits. One might have thought that the Government might more appropriately deal with the problem in that way. But in that case, as in so many others, the Chancellor keeps introducing or increasing benefits when the take-up rate is appallingly low. The latest statistics, published in February, show that the take-up of council tax benefit, which might be expected to help the poorer members of the community, was only about 66 per cent to 72 per cent by case load, and 70 per cent to 76 per cent on the basis of expenditure. The take-up of benefits by pensioners is lower than that of other people, as a whole, and the take-up in 2001–02 was lower than in the previous year. Therefore, the Bill's overall approach is open to considerable criticism.
	As I will benefit from the measure, I should not be so cautious, but I do not think that this is really the best way of spending the money. It has to be seen against the general increase in council tax which is undoubtedly having a substantial effect on many people and is in some ways the consequence of the Chancellor's own actions. I refer to the fourth Starred Question, asked earlier today by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, on the effect of the change in advance corporation tax. That is one of the things that affects the position of pensions as far as local authorities are concerned. The effect of that change made by the Chancellor will be to put up council tax, yet he is making this payment in order to offset it—a most extraordinarily circular way of going about things.
	It is difficult to oppose anything which helps people, but my strong feeling is that the Bill is inconsistent with the Chancellor's basic approach. It is, in many respects, a rather sordid Bill, and I do not think it is appropriate for the Chancellor to introduce it. But no doubt it will be of some help to people, even though it will do nothing to help many of those between 65 and 69 who suffer from council tax increases—indeed, it will be very discriminatory.
	There are various other strange provisions in the Bill, but we will not be allowed to discuss them in detail, as this has been certified as a Money Bill. I am not the least bit clear about what steps the Government propose to take to establish, for example, that the person receiving the benefit is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom. I do not remember whether that applies for the Christmas bonus.
	Overall, since there is nothing that we can do about the Bill other than make a speech on Second Reading, I believe that we have to let go of this matter. It is a shame that we cannot amend this, even though it is a Money Bill, but that is the situation. I am unenthusiastic about the Bill, to say the least.

Lord Newby: My Lords, this is a very curious Bill about a very curious payment. It is curious because the Government never intended there to be a Bill in the first place. It was always the intention that this payment should be made under regulations. At the last minute, the Government discovered that they did not have the power to do that, so the Bill has been rushed out to deal with that problem.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the Bill's title could probably be improved to make it more relevant in a number of respects. The second curiosity is that its ostensible and stated purpose is to help mitigate the increases in council tax which hit pensioner households particularly hard. But the terms of the payment are nothing to do with council tax. First, it will be paid to people who do not pay council tax, such as those living in households with members under pensionable age. Secondly, it will be paid to people who are already getting full council tax rebate. So the idea that the payment will help with council tax rises is not borne out by the way in which the measure will apply.
	This is an expensive and inefficient way of trying to reduce pensioner anger about the council tax. I am sure that it will not succeed because, at best, it is a very partial sticking plaster.
	The noble Baroness will not be surprised to know that we on these Benches believe that a better mechanism for dealing with the unfairness of the council tax would be to replace it altogether with a fairer local income tax, which would be of great benefit to pensioner households. However, I am sure that she and the rest of the House will be very relieved to know that I do not intend to give my standard speech extolling the virtues of a local income tax this afternoon. I would, however, be grateful if the noble Baroness could say something about progress on the balance of funding review. Will she, in particular, amplify the Prime Minister's statement at Question Time yesterday that he was totally opposed to any element of a local income tax as part of a funding package for local government?
	The Bill, in common with all Bills, has been before a number of Select Committees in your Lordships' House. It has been considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and by the Constitution Committee. Both committees found that the powers to make further payment to the over-60s, contained in Clause 7, are too widely drawn and are inappropriate. I was rather surprised that the Minister did not refer to these two conclusions; it seems as though the Government are perfectly happy for committees of your Lordships' House to opine on these important questions and then completely ignore their conclusions. I would be extremely grateful if she could explain how the Government respond to those two findings. They are very clearly drawn up and the two parallel committees came to the same—and, from the Government's point of view, unsatisfactory—conclusion that the Government are trying to take too widely drawn powers by way of an ability to operate through secondary legislation.
	I loved the Minister's explanation of why the powers will be needed in the future. She said it was so that the Government could respond quickly to future need. What kind of future need will apply to pensioners that will be so unexpected and will need such a quick response that draconian secondary legislation powers are required to deal with it?

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I think that the future need will be an impending election.

Lord Newby: My Lords, the future need may be an impending election, but if so, there is even less justification for the powers. The Minister did not provide a serious reason why the Government need a power of this kind. The problems of low income and poverty in pensioner households are not new. Nothing is likely to change, other than some cataclysmic event that we cannot foresee. Nothing will affect the incomes of those households in such a way that the Government need to act within a few weeks rather than through a normal legislative procedure. Frankly, I fear that I do not find the Minister's statement at all credible as to the basic purpose of the further powers granted by the Bill. It is an unsatisfactory Bill and it contains unsatisfactory powers for future payments. I certainly hope that they are never used again.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am slightly disappointed by the churlish—perhaps that is too harsh—but the less-than-warm welcome that has been extended to the Government's commitment to make available more resources to pensioners over 70. In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about why the resources would be available to over-70s rather than under-70s, I had hoped that I had sketched that out in my opening remarks. Essentially, we know that those over 70 have a lower income than those under 70. The income they have is more likely to be drawn from benefit than from earnings or private savings. People over 70 are more likely to be on pension credit. They are more likely to be female. They are also more likely to be living longer and more likely to be living alone. That is a profile that I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, completely recognises, which is why the fulcrum point of 70 makes good sense.
	The second question of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was about council tax and council tax benefits. Although I would be happy to do so if he would wish it, I do not want to engage in political sparring about comparative levels of band D between different local authorities. Overall, in order to keep our discussion blessedly free from party politics, council tax bills last year rose by 5.9 per cent. That is less than half the previous year and the lowest increase in a decade. However, it is the case that many pensioners, perhaps 1.7 million, are not claiming council tax benefit to help meet their bills. As they grow older and their incomes do not rise with perhaps the same speed as council tax rises, they may have greater difficulty in paying those bills.
	One reason why pensioners may not be claiming is because council tax benefit has been made more generous: 1.9 million people get more help; 300,000 people are newly qualified for the first time. As noble Lords will know, any changes in benefits take time to bed down in terms of people being aware of them. Furthermore, every time one increases a benefit, one produces a new group of people who are entitled to claim but who would receive very little money, so they decide that it is not worth so doing. That may be part of the reason why some pensioners are not claiming, but, nevertheless, I recognise that there is an issue to be addressed. We are working closely with local authorities to ensure that we see the maximum take-up of benefits to which pensioners are entitled to meet their council tax bills.
	As I suspected, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, could not resist at least a mention of local income tax. I cannot say what the Government's full view on that may be, but, as a local authority leader, I dealt with the poll tax when it was first introduced in the late 1980s. I remember that I had to have Special Branch protection because I implemented the law to the disgust of a number of people in the great city of Norwich, who thought that they should do something about it. It struck me that when I consulted with employers about the option of local income tax, one of the points that was made to me was that a small company with 12 employees drawn from all around Norfolk might well have seven different local income tax rates set by seven different local authorities, and that would significantly add to payroll burdens on business. I am speaking about something with which I was intimately involved at that time and it weighed heavily with me, leaving aside any of the macro-economic arguments with which the Treasury might wish to engage.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the balance of funding review. That review has received a series of presentations by experts on the pros and cons of the various options which were thrown up by the public consultation, which include reform of council tax, relocalisation of business rates, local income tax and a mixed option of a number of smaller changes in taxes. The review has been hearing evidence on a range of different options, but that should not be taken as evidence that the Government accept that the balance of funding must be changed or that they favour any of the options. To answer more closely the noble Lord's point, the review, I believe, is due to report in the summer. I shall not speculate on the outcome, but no decisions have been made. That may give the noble Lord some sense of the timetable.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised some questions about Clause 7 and its use. I accept that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have made those points, but as I am sure that the noble Lord would accept and as I hope to have established in my opening remarks, the clause is useful and benign. I cannot think that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, even if he had the power, would wish to stand in the way of any future government directing more resources to pensioners, particularly those in hardship. On that basis, I hope that I have responded to all but the highly party political remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made with relish in his speech.
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
	Then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 17 June), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Age-Related Payments (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 June be approved.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the order would introduce provisions broadly in line with those in Great Britain which are contained in the Age-Related Payments Bill, which we have just considered.
	As the Age-Related Payments Bill was certified as a money Bill, it was not possible to include within it an enabling provision for a Northern Ireland negative resolution Order in Council. We are therefore proceeding by way of an affirmative resolution Order in Council. So that payments can be made in Northern Ireland at the same time as payments in Great Britain, the order must be made at the Privy Council on 27 July 2004.
	The payment will be disregarded for social security, tax and tax credit purposes. Although the order provides for the social security disregard, as tax and tax credits are excepted matters, the disregard for those purposes cannot be included in the order. Advice from the Inland Revenue is that the payment would not be liable for income tax and would not be taken into consideration for tax credits. All the other arguments have been rehearsed in our previous discussion. I shall not go into them. I beg to move.

Moved, That the order laid before the House on 24 June be approved.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the arguments are broadly the same as before. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, as indeed the rest of the country, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and that of the committees to which he referred, about the Government's ability to make hand-outs of this kind whenever they happen to feel that it is appropriate. That is a dangerous political innovation, whether it applies to Northern Ireland or otherwise, but I would not wish to oppose the order. I merely make the point that I made before. There are many other causes on which the money could be better spent.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I am curious as to why such a provision can be introduced by secondary legislation in Northern Ireland, whereas in the rest of the country it needs primary legislation?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that it is a consequence of it being a money Bill. If I am misleading the noble Lord, I shall write to him. I hope your Lordships will accept this order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at half-past three o'clock.